All the damn time

Post #190,421 by broomberg 1/16/05 8:01:04 PM Reply	All the damn time Data warehousing demands it, unless you have an infinite budget for CPUs. And even then , the overhead of the multi-cpu matrix will peak and kill you.
Post #190,423 by drewk 1/16/05 8:05:00 PM Reply	No hints from the peanut gallery I was asking someone else what he thinks. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #190,426 by broomberg 1/16/05 8:11:15 PM Reply	Give him the benefit > Why was it spread over several tables? > Perhaps your issue was poor normalization > or schema design. Many shops tend to > create too many tables. He was leading up to a critique of full normalization which in turn kill performance. Of course, "poor" normalization is a "poor" way of stating it, but it wasn't to the level of George.
Post #190,431 by drewk 1/16/05 8:29:32 PM Reply	Fairy nuff I read his question as, "Why would you have informatoin about one person in multiple tables?" I assumed he's advocating a "theoretically correct" schema that wouldn't work in the real world. I concede the possibility he's describing a badly over-normalized schema, one of which I have seen in production and it blew chunks. So tablizer, what were you getting at? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #190,457 by CRConrad 1/17/05 1:57:15 AM Reply	Barry's right; overnormalization is 1 of Bryce's hobbyhorses
Post #190,540 by tablizer 1/17/05 11:25:14 PM Reply	Huh? What did I over-normalize? ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #190,551 by CRConrad 1/18/05 1:57:24 AM Reply	It means the opposite of what you seem to think it does. HTH
Post #190,689 by tablizer 1/18/05 9:33:12 PM Reply	Okay then, what did I UNDER-normalize? Is this about that time that the info-world forums took a dump, I helped recreate the threads using a FoxPro script, and then we got into a big argument about storing lists of ID's in a cell instead of creating a many-to-many table? It was a one-shot script, not production ebay. So, lighten up. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #190,762 by CRConrad 1/19/05 10:29:32 AM Reply	SIGH... "A hobby-horse" means, something you like to... ...go on and on about, not something you like to do. That's why "over-normalization" is "a hobby-horse" of yours -- because you rant about it all the time. I was not saying that you like to do it. Is comprehension finally starting to -- however slowly -- seep in? Or shall we go over this for a few more rounds? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #190,859 by ben_tilly 1/19/05 6:35:22 PM Reply	Note: in this case it really is a bad idea Our team inherited the database from another team. We created a view that joins the tables together into the view that we need, and querying that view has never come close to being a bottleneck, so we've never fixed it. But we wouldn't have designed it that way in the first place, and if there were signs that this was becoming a bottleneck, then we'd fix it. (The application wouldn't need much fixing.) Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!