Is Normalization relgion?
Category SQL
Bookmark :
Normalisation* isn't really something you worry about in Notes - although you might look to store data in response documents where you have multiple entities ( e.g. personnel reviews) related to parent entity (e.g. a member of staff).
In the SQL world normalisation means avoiding redundant storage of the data but you relate the rows of data with keys - similar I guess to the relation between a parent and response document in Notes where the parent document UNID is the key. In a SQL database you normally work pretty hard to keep your data normalised but I was discussion this today with someone because we have a dilemma around how normalised we should keep the database. On this front I found this blog entry with a link to a presentation on the Flickr architecture. The bottom line is that if you are prepared to put up with the down-sides, then go for it just stuff the principal. This is also backed up somewhat on Wikipedia where it makes the point that for online analytical processing applications denormalised data structures have long been used to improve performance.
In our situation the option before us is to duplicate storage of some order data so that we can to guarantee that we can replicate the order at any point in the future. I think thats what we will be doing.
So that is an attitude re-adjustment for me today - normalisation is NOT a religion.
* Normalization for the US English folks
Bookmark :
Normalisation* isn't really something you worry about in Notes - although you might look to store data in response documents where you have multiple entities ( e.g. personnel reviews) related to parent entity (e.g. a member of staff).
In the SQL world normalisation means avoiding redundant storage of the data but you relate the rows of data with keys - similar I guess to the relation between a parent and response document in Notes where the parent document UNID is the key. In a SQL database you normally work pretty hard to keep your data normalised but I was discussion this today with someone because we have a dilemma around how normalised we should keep the database. On this front I found this blog entry with a link to a presentation on the Flickr architecture. The bottom line is that if you are prepared to put up with the down-sides, then go for it just stuff the principal. This is also backed up somewhat on Wikipedia where it makes the point that for online analytical processing applications denormalised data structures have long been used to improve performance.
In our situation the option before us is to duplicate storage of some order data so that we can to guarantee that we can replicate the order at any point in the future. I think thats what we will be doing.
So that is an attitude re-adjustment for me today - normalisation is NOT a religion.
* Normalization for the US English folks
- 
Comments
I find myself striving for greater normalization but have to balance it on the complexity of the sql I have to generate and maintain to support it. So it's a performance and maintenance balance. Granted this systems with minimal transactional load.
Posted by Yancy Lent At 16:34:03 On 28/08/2008 | - Website - |