for most business transactional databases, we should normalize relations into

icon, finance, bank @ Pixabay

“A User has many Bs.I’ve been talking to a lot of people lately and most of them are still in the “most business transactional databases should normalize relations into” camp. Some of them (like me) believe that relational databases are more flexible than non-relational ones, and so we should take the best of Relational databases and make them into a good middle ground. In my opinion, this is an oversimplification and I want to talk about a few more things.

“A User has many Bs.I’ve been talking to a lot of people lately and most of them are still in the “most business transactional databases should normalize relations into” camp. Some of them (like me) believe that relational databases are more flexible than non-relational ones, and so we should take the best of Relational databases and make them into a good middle ground. In my opinion, this is an oversimplification and I want to talk about a few more things.The most important thing is that each B has many A. That is the most important thing because it makes your database scale better. But if you normalize relations (B-A), then you can map them (A-B) without worrying about the exact number of A and B. This reduces your database size even more. And since you are worried about the exact number of A and B, you may also end up with a bloated database with a lot of redundant tables.

“A User has many Bs.I’ve been talking to a lot of people lately and most of them are still in the “most business transactional databases should normalize relations into” camp. Some of them (like me) believe that relational databases are more flexible than non-relational ones, and so we should take the best of Relational databases and make them into a good middle ground. In my opinion, this is an oversimplification and I want to talk about a few more things.The most important thing is that each B has many A. That is the most important thing because it makes your database scale better. But if you normalize relations (B-A), then you can map them (A-B) without worrying about the exact number of A and B. This reduces your database size even more. And since you are worried about the exact number of A and B, you may also end up with a bloated database with a lot of redundant tables.Normalizing relations is a common approach for every business transactional database. The idea is to normalize relations to a database like the one we have here. The idea is to reduce a lot of the tables involved in the transaction. The idea is to make the database smaller.

“A User has many Bs.I’ve been talking to a lot of people lately and most of them are still in the “most business transactional databases should normalize relations into” camp. Some of them (like me) believe that relational databases are more flexible than non-relational ones, and so we should take the best of Relational databases and make them into a good middle ground. In my opinion, this is an oversimplification and I want to talk about a few more things.The most important thing is that each B has many A. That is the most important thing because it makes your database scale better. But if you normalize relations (B-A), then you can map them (A-B) without worrying about the exact number of A and B. This reduces your database size even more. And since you are worried about the exact number of A and B, you may also end up with a bloated database with a lot of redundant tables.Normalizing relations is a common approach for every business transactional database. The idea is to normalize relations to a database like the one we have here. The idea is to reduce a lot of the tables involved in the transaction. The idea is to make the database smaller.Normalization is also sometimes referred to as “relational normalization,” or the “universalization” of relational databases. Relational normalization is basically a way to reduce the size of the database without sacrificing performance. The idea is to remove all tables that don’t match certain criteria (like one-to-one or one-to-many).

Published
Categorized as blog

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *