Talk:Denormalization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 Merge with Normalization? 2 Preferred Database Design? 3 Some more explanation needed 4 Denormalization a sign of bad DB architecture??

[edit] Merge with Normalization?

I feel this is too small... Can we merge it with Database normalization? Jam2k 14:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I and a few others have been editing Database normalization recently to split it up into separate articles for each normal form. Now that's happened, it'd probably be best to keep this article as the main article for denormalization, with a link from the database normalization article. --VinceBowdren 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preferred Database Design?

Why does the author state that the "preferred" design for better query access is to use materialized views? In the next paragraph he states the more usual approach is to denormalize in the database design. If this approach is "more usual" than the former cannot be the preferred approach, can it? --67.111.175.98 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely POV, but I'm not sure of the terminology to fix it. Perhaps replace "preferred" by describing the method as more of a "back-end" method performed internally by the DBMS software, while denormalization is a "front-end" method performed by the person designing the database structure. This may cause confusion with other uses of the back-end and front-end terms, however. I do agree that some cleanup of this article is needed. Maybe I'll come back and see how it looks after finishing a couple more courses. :) Maghnus 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some more explanation needed

It is sometimes necessary because current DBMSs implement the relational model poorly.

Why is denormalization needed, if the DBMS implements the relational model poorly? I feel that some reference is needed there. Maybe some links to some study about how bad (or good) dbms adhere to the releational modem, would be interesting. 213.156.59.112 (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Denormalization a sign of bad DB architecture??

Giving DBA's explicit ability to chose what level of denormalization to use instead of reserving it to the DB software seems like an explicit architectural choice that will allow immensely greater scalability while only offering moderate addition to complexity. There are so many other, more important problems to solve in CS than how DB software can guess usage patterns before-hand for minimal gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.191.60 (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)