Hi,

I am creating my main table of a database, and while i am planning the setup i am noticing that some of the fields are going to change often ... now i remember myself reading somewhere that ideally fields which have their data changed often should be created in a different table, and not within the table which the other fields data will remain somewhat static.

My question is this: since i am not interested to keep track of the previous values in these fields in a history table, is it ok if i bend the rules of normalization and go with creating the frequently changed and the fairly static fields all in the same table since they are all related the item?

Thanks

is it ok if i bend the rules of normalization

No, it is not. They are rules for a reason.

Of course, you can do whatever you want, but you'll most likely suffer.

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. While I do understand that ideally rules should not be broken, kindly could someone advise me what are the main disadvantages of having fairly static fields and frequently changed fields in the same table.

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. While I do understand that ideally rules should not be broken, kindly could someone advise me what are the main disadvantages of having fairly static fields and frequently changed fields in the same table.

Thanks

When you say 'fields' do you mean the data in the fields or the actual fields themselves?

Hi,

Yes I meant the value of the fields, and not the adding/deleting fields in the table.

Thanks

What are you trying to do?

I had not read that the number of updates had anything to do with normalization, and I know quite a bit about the topic. Though it is true that with properly normalized databases, some tables see more DML action than others.

What are you trying to do (v. 2.0)?

The frequency of updates is not cause for splitting one table into two with a 1-1 relationship. In some cases, you might consider isolating memo fields because of their overhead but I wouldn't even do that unless you need some response time improvement.

Thank you very much for your replies. It makes much better sense to me now.

Thanks