Talk:Denormalization

message: It would be good if we could have some examples of Denormalization to illustrate its use Pebkac (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Preferred Database Design?

message: :  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)
thread_title: Some more explanation needed

message: 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)
thread_title: Denormalization a sign of bad DB architecture??

message: This lead-paragraph statement makes an amazingly-broad claim:
:“A relational normalised database imposes a heavy access load over physical storage of data even if it is well tuned for high performance.”
To me, this looks like a POV bias against normalization, so I've tagged it as such.  At the very least, it would need to cite a credible source which asserts that access load is “heavy”, regardless of other factors, as a consequence of a database being normalized.  206.205.52.162 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections, I'm going to drop that unsourced claim as both unrealistically broad and of questionable NPOV.  206.205.52.162 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Normalized implies heavy load?

message: Can we agree on the spelling, normalization vs. normalisation, and be consistent throughout? I will not attempt a change now, and hope someone more authoritative can do it. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:620:8:3E82:8000:0:0:14C3 (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and made the change, but as a BOLD change to make the text of the article consistent with the title, rather than an authoritative one. However I do note that E. F. Codd introduced the inverse term as "normalization" in his seminal 1969 paper, "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks": "There is, in fact, a  very  simple  elimination  procedure,  which  we  shall  call normalization." Shunpiker (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: British vs. American spelling

message: The usual key word to search this page is Database Denormalization and hence I propose to move this article to the improved title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natarajan N Napoleon (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Title (Move to Database Denormalization 

message: In continuation to the Talk: Merge with Normalization? I would like to propose the following.
This Database Denormalization has to be expanded with examples of normalized database models performing poorly when compared to slightly Denormalzied models assuming the same database model for both with benchmark results. I would like to start on this after getting a word from concerned. After expansion, if the discussion further goes in the direction of merging...let it be. But I feel that once this article is expanded (at least once sufficiently elaborated) there will not be a need for merging.
Also, Database Normalization itself is a big area which can be expanded with lot of references, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natarajan N Napoleon (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding with examples of database models and their performance variations 

message: I think a few more sources should be added. Epainter20 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources