Talk:Database normalization/Archive 1

message: I visited this page to get an informed overview of the topic of database normalization. I was rather dismayed to find this overview limited to a single sentence: "Database normalization is a series of steps followed to obtain a database design that allows for consistent storage and efficient access of data in a relational database. These steps reduce data redundancy and the risk of data becoming inconsistent."
While I cannot possibly find fault with this opening statement, the remainder of the article was rather beyond me, and, I suspect, many others. I concede the point that someone searching Wikipedia looking for the topic of database normalization is likely to have at least a moderately informed understanding of database theory. However, this article, as currently written, does not, in my view, adequately explain the basic concept. I believe a brief discussion of the steps mentioned in the opening paragraph be added to this topic's definition.
In essence, I wanted to add my support of KeyStroke's plea for a more generally-understandable article, at least in the opening definition.
: Seconded again.  I used to think I understood relational databases, and then I read this thing.  I think the problem is that it tires too hard to sound like an encyclopedia.  While I realize that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in an encyclopedic tone, something as (apparently) complicated as this doesn't lend itself to high-flung language.  I need examples or I'll have no idea what's going on; if we have to sacrifice some of the tone to make an understandable article, then so be it.  Starwiz 20:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
:: I decided to mark the article for technical cleanup; feel free to discuss that decision here. Starwiz 22:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
::: What's the practicality for the use of this template? Isn't the evaluation of what's too technical going to vary by each individual reader? For example, if I (as a non-principal author) can understand the content of an article, is that grounds enough for removing it, or do we have to put it to a vote every time we want to remove such a tag?  Over a month has gone by since the tag was added.  Examples have been added.  Can the template be removed? - Bevo 15:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, no fooling.  This thing is unreadable.  I don't think one needs a crash course in set theory to understand database normalization.  I've moved the math-y content over to relational model, though perhaps those issues deserve their own article? Metaeducation 12:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: A suggestion by me is to take a UNF database example, and normalise it down to 3NF.  -x42bn6 Talk 03:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbing it down -or- "Wikipedia for Dummies" 

message: : The below was inlined into the article, and from what I could tell it was describing tasks to elaborate upon in-line in the article.  I think it is preferable to keep that to-do list here. Metaeducation 12:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some things to do?

message: Elmasri / Navathes "fundamentals of database systems" seems to disagree on 1NF (see page 486.)
It states, regarding a relation with the attribute "DEPARTMENTLOCATIONS" (which holds non-atomic values such as {Bellaire, Sugarland, Houston)):
"If a maximum number of values is known for the attribute-for example if it is known that at most three locations can exist for the department-replace the DLOCATIONS attribute by three atomic attributes: DLOCATION1, DLOCATION2 and DLOCATION3.  This solution has the disadvantage of introducing null values if most departments have fewer than three locations."
This would seem to contradict with the article which reads:
"ITEM_1_NAME
ITEM_1_PRICE
ITEM_1_QUANTITY
ITEM_2_NAME
ITEM_2_PRICE
ITEM_2_QUANTITY
...
ITEM_N_NAME
ITEM_N_PRICE
ITEM_N_QUANTITY
The attributes for holding information about each Item on the Order are repeated for the number of different Items ordered."
Obviously the solution given by EN isn't one you would want to see in a real database, and they themselves make this clear, but it does contradict with the articles definition of 1NF.  Is EN wrong?  is there a canonical definition of 1NF somewhere?  Can someone enlighten me?  :-?  GeorgeBills 13:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term normal form suggests that for a given level of knowledge about the relationships in a database, there is only one schema that fits the definition.  (Or so I would read it.)  The allowance of null values, since they do not "count", runs counter to the idea.  (It sounds a bit like saying that 10 is a canonical representation of "ten", but so is 10.0)  I'm only just starting to grasp the idea of schema = f(normal form type, set theory relationships of quantities involved in database); that sounds cool in my head, but is it true?  But if it's true, I'd think that only one schema can come back for two parameters.  This means null values are out.  Right?  Metaeducation 08:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1NF 

message: The first normal form is now in real layman terms. It offers plenty of examples, and is easily understood. Let's go for this sort of clarity with 2NF and 3NF. Good work guys! — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does however have the problem that what is now written under that header has nothing to do with being in 1NF. Is somebody going to fix that? -- Jan Hidders 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. I think we've gone too far in simplifying it. We should first offer a concise definition (both formal and informal), then give the example. Hmm... — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1NF Simplified