Hacker News Reader

Comment by chris_wot | Hacker News Reader

Very clear. I found that the met comprehensive explanation of normalization was in an APress book, Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals.

Incidentally, did you cover 4NF and 5NF in the course? IMO, you'll almost never need 6NF.

View on HN

CJ Date describes Normal Form as common sense in Database in Depth, "...the principles are common sense-but they're formalised common sense. (Common sense might be common, but it's not so easy to say exactly what it is!)".

Formalisation of your normalisation! Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals is on the reading list, looking forward to it.

By 3NF most database schemas are good enough(tm), going further usually results in minor changes for large amounts of work.

Over the years, I have come to realise that even the third normal form is perhaps too much of an overhead for web apps. I guess that's why we have all these modern alternative DBs.

I think 3NF is a good starting point, then as I said in another comment, you start profiling to find where expensive queries are coming into play and hurting your performance, then denormalize those issues away.

There must be a better answer than denormalizing. I'd try to get a DBA or DBE involved to look at the situation if possible. Re-structuring the query might be all that's needed.

Of couse that's an over-simplification, de-normalisation certainly fits in after many other forms of optimisation.

I agree, I think denormalizatuon is one of those things you do after trying to rewrite the query. After all, if you can get the optimiser to choose a different access plan that's quicker by rewriting the query to be more efficient, then you're better off overall. There's costs to denormalization too... Not to mention you need to ensure that your application code writes correctly.

It depends what you are doing. If you have a lot of semi structured data, like documents, then go with a document oriented database. If you have semi-structured data that you don't want to do much analytics on, consider a key/value store. But it you require full ACID properties, want to reduce your application code and not worry so much about integrity, then an RDBMS is still the way to go.

I worked as a DBA somewhere that did everything in 5NF. It was a nightmare. I only stayed there 3 months. In my last week there, I remember having to debug a 35 table join. I'm so glad I left.

The performance must have been horrendous! The query optimiser must have gone nuts - that's 35! possible join combinations :-(

I had left before they were willing to performance test the application. But I heard that after they launched that it was awful.

The Oracle optimizer quits optimizing after the first ~7 joins so we had to do manual optimization after that. Almost every query was at least 7 joins. The guy running the DBA group was following the Data Model Resource Book to a "T", which I think is appropriate for an OLAP database, but is not cool for OLTP.

If you want to see something hilarious, get a 12 join query and add "AND 1=0" on the end of the WHERE clause.

Oracle doesn't look at the query and immediately return no rows, instead the optimizer continues to generate a full plan. Apparently, according to Oracle support, they have no intention of finding "AND false" predicates to shortcut query plan compilation.

That could work in PostgreSQL with the genetic join optimizer. You would not get the best plan or necessarily a stable one but it could be fast enough. I believe the worst reporting queries I have written could have been almost as bad as 35 joins. Of course they were not fast but not as slow as one might think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com