Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • I cannot see how a data modification anomaly risk is created. As long as I am keeping the second table and using a relationship to it, I can have the type 'Novel' in my system even if I don't have a single record of a novel, so no insertion or deletion anomaly. Also, there is no other information associated with a LiteraryWorkType beside its name, so there cannot be an update anomaly. Could you please give an example of an anomaly which would occur in the second design? Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 14:30
  • 2
    @RumiP. Database normalization might be a useful read. Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 14:56
  • @MichaelT I read it. To put it in terms of this article, what I am saying is, "the type of a Literary Work is a candidate key in its own right, just like a SSN in the example, so if I use it instead of an artificially added autoincrementing column, normalization is not broken". I also clarified my question to say what I am not trying to do. If there is still a mistake in my thinking, could you please explain it, in terms of the article you linked, exactly what the mistake is? Which normal form am I hurting, and why? I am not yet sure if I really made a mistake, or if you misunderstood my q. Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 15:16