Re: The joy of SQL

On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 01:19:13 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 11/1/24 4:56 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 02:45:56 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 

On 11/1/24 12:14 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 23:57:11 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>

On 10/31/24 2:20 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 01:35:23 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>

On 10/30/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

The trouble with unnormalized fields is: how do you do updates?
You have to delete all the values and insert them all again.

>
Updates CAN be annoying.

>
Easy way to remove the annoyance: normalize your field values.

>
But the 'easy' way removes some of your flexibility and reasoning
ability in the process.

>
No it doesn’t. Prove me wrong.

>
This can't be "proven" per-se ... it's a matter of how you "feel"
about how data should be represented to best effect/clarity. Call it
'religion' if you want ...

 
“Religion” is when followers are rewarded for believing in doctrine,
not just in the absence of evidence, but directly contrary to the
evidence.
 
In other words, I think you’ve just admitted my point.

 
And you just admitted mine  :-)

The fact of normalized attributes being easier to update isn’t a religious
issue: it’s a well-established foundation element of database theory. It’s
the reason why we have first normal form. And subsequent higher normal
forms impose further restrictions which in their turn make other kinds of
updates easier.