carrying normalization too far?

[Catherine Jo Morgan]

I'm wondering if I'm trying to normalize data way beyond what will prove
practical. For example, if I put People, Addreses, and Comms in 3 different
tables, with junction tables for People/Addresses and People/Comms, then
will the data entry form for new contacts have to be in form, subform,
subsub form and possibly more subs?

If my table structure is split so much that a common data entry form has
fields bound to 8 or 10 different tables, is this going to be a nightmare to
create and use? TIA

[fp]

Re: carrying normalization too far?

To make your design more flexible, use views (queries) that do your joins
for you. Then if you make a table change your views will still work.

As far as normalization, you do that first to lay out your data. After that,
you may need to de-normalize some aspects of your design for performance or
other reasons.

It sounds like you are on the right track.

--
*************** ***************
Fred Parker
Lynn Consulting Group, L.L.C.

http://www.lynnconsultinggroup.com

*************** ***************

[Pieter Linden]

Re: carrying normalization too far?

"Catherine Jo Morgan" <cjmorgan@hemc. net> wrote in message news:<19OdnVFZ6 rP-ZlSiRVn-iw@hemc.net>...[color=blue]
> I'm wondering if I'm trying to normalize data way beyond what will prove
> practical. For example, if I put People, Addreses, and Comms in 3 different
> tables, with junction tables for People/Addresses and People/Comms, then
> will the data entry form for new contacts have to be in form, subform,
> subsub form and possibly more subs?
>
> If my table structure is split so much that a common data entry form has
> fields bound to 8 or 10 different tables, is this going to be a nightmare to
> create and use? TIA[/color]

If 3 tables is enough and you can query and get the information you
want, then that's enough. the real question now is, if you build your
database with 3 tables, can you summarize/search it the way you need
to? If so, then that's normalized enough. It's an impossible
question to answer without knowing what level of summary you're
looking for.

[Kinetic - Paul G]

Re: carrying normalization too far?

hhhmmmm
normalisation . . . say like homer simpson saying beer . . . .

part of normalisation is doing the maths on how much duplication of data
occurs versus the performance tradeoff. In its purest form there should be
NO duplication . . just pointers linking records. In reality thats hardly
ever the case. Consider the addresses / people . . how often do more then 1
person share an address. 1 in 100 . . 1 in 10 . . . 1in 5 . . the more
tables you have - the more processing you need to do to control the
structure . . so look for the Right level of comprimise . . It may mean you
must split the people/addresses even if a duplicate occurs 1 in a million .
.. or you can handle it a 1 in 10 . .Personally i start on the premise that
if a duplicate can occur . . then split it and work my way backwards
consolidating tables until I have a workable solution. . . And I was doing
this a years before the PC was introduced to the world . .but the basic
rules dont change. The interesting stuff is learning how to bend them . .
grin . .


cheers
paul g




"Pieter Linden" <pietlinden@hot mail.com> wrote in message
news:bf31e41b.0 311301349.16ecc b@posting.googl e.com...[color=blue]
> "Catherine Jo Morgan" <cjmorgan@hemc. net> wrote in message[/color]
news:<19OdnVFZ6 rP-ZlSiRVn-iw@hemc.net>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > I'm wondering if I'm trying to normalize data way beyond what will prove
> > practical. For example, if I put People, Addreses, and Comms in 3[/color][/color]
different[color=blue][color=green]
> > tables, with junction tables for People/Addresses and People/Comms, then
> > will the data entry form for new contacts have to be in form, subform,
> > subsub form and possibly more subs?
> >
> > If my table structure is split so much that a common data entry form has
> > fields bound to 8 or 10 different tables, is this going to be a[/color][/color]
nightmare to[color=blue][color=green]
> > create and use? TIA[/color]
>
> If 3 tables is enough and you can query and get the information you
> want, then that's enough. the real question now is, if you build your
> database with 3 tables, can you summarize/search it the way you need
> to? If so, then that's normalized enough. It's an impossible
> question to answer without knowing what level of summary you're
> looking for.[/color]

[Mike Sherrill]

Re: carrying normalization too far?

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:14:51 -0500, "Catherine Jo Morgan"
<cjmorgan@hemc. net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I'm wondering if I'm trying to normalize data way beyond what will prove
>practical. For example, if I put People, Addreses, and Comms in 3 different
>tables, with junction tables for People/Addresses and People/Comms, then
>will the data entry form for new contacts have to be in form, subform,
>subsub form and possibly more subs?[/color]

No. You *will* need some way to present the data from M:N
relationships to the user, but you don't have to use subforms to do
that. (And you probably shouldn't.)
[color=blue]
>If my table structure is split so much that a common data entry form has
>fields bound to 8 or 10 different tables, is this going to be a nightmare to
>create and use?[/color]

Well, if you're going to try to bind a form to a query with a dozen
joins in it, you're going to have a lot of trouble.

Instead, find a different way. Do some research on "unbound forms".

--
Mike Sherrill
Information Management Systems