Talk:Star schema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

For the sake of those who aren't theoretical database experts, it'd be nice to have a counterexample of how you'd represent the same data in a traditional relational schema and how queries against the two schemas would differ. As someone who's learned SQL the hard way and hasn't had any formal database training, it's difficult to see what the big deal is. (Not saying there isn't one, you understand. Just that it would be nice if the article illustrated what it is.) --Chronodm 16:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What the big deal is... good question. Ralph Kimball seems to be one of the key players in convincing many people that its a big deal. http://www.noumenal.com/marc/schema.html http://www.oreview.com/9602burl.htm Some day, I hope enough people realize it's not the panacea they were led to believe it was. Instead, think about the complex cause and effect process you are trying to model. In most cases, the truly useful big questions aren't answerable just with the corporate data being compiled to track sales and costs (regardless whether it's in 5th Normal Form or a Star Schema). Then go find a way to approximately get that data, and leave the banal stuff (including OLAP and Star Schemas) for the soon to be outsourced projects.

[edit] sql examples

Please, someone give the sql examples an introduction so their relevance is obvious to people, otherwise they are worthless and should be (shall be?) deleted. 75.73.52.72 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)dave

They aren't worthless without a description and should not be removed. I do agree that they need such a description or that we need some better examples, but I disagree strongly with the assertion that they should be removed without one. --Nachtrabe 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no sql example in this page. Try to load new one.

Is there any reason the current example is written without the use of inner joins syntax? Or are we just going old school? Root⁴(one) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram/picture

Could anyone draw a simple diagram illustrating this? My understanding is just that this is one main table with a bunch of foreign keys but I'm not familiar enough with this to be sure. 216.165.132.250 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)