InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comWed, 19 Jun 2013 01:29:56 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxExcellent article. [i][b]qh[/b][/i]Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:21:12 GMTquackhandle1975http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxHi Paul,Thanks a lot for this excellent article. It was a refreshing experience to read the foundations of database design. Reading it as a story made it all the more readable.Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:44:27 GMTRaPhRaMhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxpls give us more in this area of database.great workMon, 14 Jan 2013 07:57:06 GMTtoyingfor_uhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxThanks for great Topic,I need continuation of this story :-)PlzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzIts like half read book, half life .Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:03:09 GMTmuzaffar.shahkhanhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxVery well presented and well designed tutorial. The color-coding and the comparative association to the typical Excel user's way of thinking was a perfect way to explain these concepts.--JimSat, 12 Jan 2013 09:01:19 GMTJames Stephenshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxFantastic, great , excellent article! Great way of explaining normalization in a not-so-technical manner but in a way so easily understood even by beginners!Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:07:07 GMTSQLSalashttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxFantastic article. This is probably the simplest explanation of practical normalization I have read in a long time.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:41:45 GMTtimothyawisemanhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]Bruce W Cassidy (1/11/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]Stefan Krzywicki (1/11/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]krowley (1/11/2013)[/b][hr]I need to figure out how to setup my SQL Server Management Studio to do intelisense then.[/quote]It should work with the 2005, but maybe not with the 2000. [/quote]It will only work against SQL Server 2008 (and later) databases.[/quote]Ok. That's a shame. I can't upgrade to a later compatibility mode because the developers of the third party application used =* for a LOT of joins and I would have to go back and fix all of these myself which I don't have the time to do at the moment.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:20:58 GMTkrowleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxPaul,A great introduction to the topic, thank you. I'm curious: is there a follow-up planned?Things I liked were that you related the process of the design to solving a "real world" issue (although this did drop off, which I thought was a shame). You also skipped some of the more complex issues (natural versus surrogate keys springs to mind) which I personally thought was a good choice: it's far more important to get the concept of keys in place first.I did find the whole Alice+Bob narration style a little trite... however, that style may work well for the intended audience, which I am well aware is not myself!All-in-all, I felt it was an excellent introduction, and that you pitched it at exactly the right level; if anything, I felt you introduced a few rules very early that I would have put off for later, so kudos for you there!Now, about that follow-up...Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:06:48 GMTBruce W Cassidyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]Stefan Krzywicki (1/11/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]krowley (1/11/2013)[/b][hr]I need to figure out how to setup my SQL Server Management Studio to do intelisense then.[/quote]It should work with the 2005, but maybe not with the 2000. [/quote]It will only work against SQL Server 2008 (and later) databases.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:59:49 GMTBruce W Cassidyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]krowley (1/11/2013)[/b][hr]Did the author ever write any followup articles? If so could you point me to them? This tutorial was originally published in January of 2011.[/quote]Not yet. Feel free to bother him :w00t:Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:20:06 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]krowley (1/11/2013)[/b][hr]Did the author ever write any followup articles? If so could you point me to them? This tutorial was originally published in January of 2011.[/quote]Click on the author's name in the byline of the article. It will show you everything the author has written here.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:02:50 GMTStefan Krzywickihttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]krowley (1/11/2013)[/b][hr]I need to figure out how to setup my SQL Server Management Studio to do intelisense then. I have the management studio for SQL Server 2008 R2 installed but the database server is only running 2005 and the databases are mostly in 2000 compatibility mode. Does this make a difference?Intelisense seems to work on my home computer with the same version of management studio, but I am working with 2008 version databases there.[/quote]It should work with the 2005, but maybe not with the 2000. Clicking and dragging will work with either.One fun trick: Type SELECT and a space and then clock on the Columns folder under the table name and drag that to after SELECT. All the columns will be written out for you. A great way to replace * in production code.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:01:40 GMTStefan Krzywickihttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxDid the author ever write any followup articles? If so could you point me to them? This tutorial was originally published in January of 2011.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:49:12 GMTkrowleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxI wish I could make views keep my code formatting. Is there any way to do that?Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:46:27 GMTkrowleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[i]Excellent[/i] article overall.These are extremely difficult concepts to introduce to people, and the article does a superb job of making the ideas accessible to anyone.[I do think Alice should have mentioned something about the price changing later and that needing looked at later -- "Bob, if someone pays $10 today, and the price goes up to $12 tomorrow, if they return that item you don't want to give them $12 instead of the $10 they paid, do you?" [i]That[/i] should get Bob's attention.]Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:45:14 GMTScottPletcherhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxI need to figure out how to setup my SQL Server Management Studio to do intelisense then. I have the management studio for SQL Server 2008 R2 installed but the database server is only running 2005 and the databases are mostly in 2000 compatibility mode. Does this make a difference?Intelisense seems to work on my home computer with the same version of management studio, but I am working with 2008 version databases there.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:45:01 GMTkrowleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]krowley (1/11/2013)[/b][hr]Great article overall. I respectfully disagree with this statement, "Bob quickly found himself preferring the SELECT, JOIN, and WHERE syntax over the designer" even as a professional database admin\developer I find I sometimes prefer the designer for simplifying complicated joins or even when I just don't feel like typing out table and field names over and over.[/quote]Intellisense makes short work of that typing. You can click and drag table names and field names from the Object Explorer into your queries and if you're typing, intellisense will complete the field names for you, making that much easier as well. In the end you have a much more readable query than anything put together by the designer and you can comment it as well.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:35:36 GMTStefan Krzywickihttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxGreat article overall. I respectfully disagree with this statement, "Bob quickly found himself preferring the SELECT, JOIN, and WHERE syntax over the designer" even as a professional database admin\developer I find I sometimes prefer the designer for simplifying complicated joins or even when I just don't feel like typing out table and field names over and over.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:23:59 GMTkrowleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxThis is very refreshing as an article. Many need to know the basic This will start up many interested beginners into database career.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:23:27 GMTtoyingfor_uhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxThis is a good refreshing article.Many dont know the basic of DB and I think this should start beginner up for great database careerFri, 11 Jan 2013 08:19:45 GMTtoyingfor_uhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxVery well written article - - clear and succinct. And the story approach makes it more engaging. 5 stars.For discussion (not a criticism):Regarding the bridge table - - because you have added quantity to the Receipts-Product table, I would think of this table as a fact table. If the purpose of the table was purely for resolving the many-to-many for queries for business information, and not to select quantity, then I would think of that as a bridge table.If you're going to put quantity in the table, you're more than likely also going to put date, and now the true transactional purpose of the table becomes obvious. And with any transactional table, your non-date keys will probably repeat - so now it is clearly NOT a bridge table.bjfFri, 11 Jan 2013 08:15:19 GMTbrianfarrell07http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxExcellent article for the db beginner, Paul. I'm a newbie to this forum but felt compelled to tell you how much I appreciate this article for it's elegant simplicity in explaining the merits of databases. I am excited to share it with co-workers who are just now learning about databases and coming over to the SQL side. Many thanks.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 06:27:53 GMTstaci.kellenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxI have just read this article for the first time and found to be very informative. Have you followed it up with an article on T-SQL and, if so, is there a link?Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:42:47 GMTmichael.newman560http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxI have just read this article for the first time and found to be very informative. Have you followed it up with an article on T-SQL and, if so, is there a link?Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:40:47 GMTmichael.newman560http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxGreat article Paul :-)Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:33:08 GMTKrtyknmhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxThat's a smashing article Paul - I've been designing databases for as long as I can remember and yet it remained an engaging and enlightening piece. Very well done.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:18:00 GMTtheboyholtyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxI think I'm in love with Alice.Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:14:32 GMTtheboyholtyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxWell I thought it was excellent articleFri, 11 Jan 2013 01:29:38 GMTDalkeithhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxVery good article, thanks for this. I did Database design on my HND and hated it, no surprise that I failed it and had to retake it before I was awarded my HND. So I actually took to the time to learn it properly and passed the module. Six years later I become a SQL DBA, and start using normalization in the "real world" :-DAll noobie DBAs should read this. Then read it again. And again. ;-)[i][b]fc[/b][/i]Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:47:54 GMTquackhandle1975http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]FargoUT (3/29/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (3/29/2011)[/b][hr]In the presence of the element "Administratium", it's all for naught, anyway. ;-)[/quote]Is that anything like the Illuminati??[/quote]Heh... nah... at least the Illuminati get things done. :-DTue, 29 Mar 2011 20:24:01 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (3/29/2011)[/b][hr]In the presence of the element "Administratium", it's all for naught, anyway. ;-)[/quote]Is that anything like the Illuminati??Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:47:22 GMTFargoUThttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxIn the presence of the element "Administratium", it's all for naught, anyway. ;-)Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:36:24 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]kenambrose (1/22/2011)[/b][hr]duplicates never exist in the real world so preventing them is a basic step in recording facts about the world[/quote]Last time I looked at physics four kinds of elementary bosons had been observed (and another two postulated, but not yet observed). Bosons can cerainly be duplicates (unlike Fermions) - and elementary bosons can of course occupy the same spaces as each other as well as having identical quantum states and being duplicates of each other. As neither the Higgs boson nor the graviton has yet been observed (and the latter probably never will be) I won't count those, and neither will I count composite bosons which are constructed from Fermions, but that still leaves the four already observed gauge bosons (photon, gluon, W, and Z) as real word things that can be (and frequently are) duplicated.So while relational theory doesn't like duplicates, don't make a fool of yourself by claiming that this is because it represents the real world, because the opposite is true: the absence of duplicates prevents it from modelling all aspects of the real world.Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:45:35 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]sknox (1/20/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]mike_walsh (1/18/2011)[/b][hr]This is quite possibly one of the best technical articles for a wide audience that I have read in a long time, Paul. To anyone who is already well acquainted with database design, there won't be much new here...[/quote]I respectfully disagree (not with the first sentence, with the second!) I think the breadth of the comments in this article show that one key thing that is "new" here to many DB professionals (myself included) is the end-user perspective. We spend so much time sitting in front of our screens modelling diagrams or tweaking scripts or reports that it's easy to forget how to help our users understand and get comfortable with tools that can help them a great deal. We get bogged down in query efficiency and degrees of normalization and can lose sight of the whole reason we're doing that.I read this article and the comments not to learn how to design a database, but to remember what drives people to databases and to get ideas on how to introduce the concepts without overloading people with technical jargon. This article does a great job of illustrating that.[/quote]The same for me. It's a great article. A lot of theorists forget that while abstruse theory is fun it doesn't help those who don't want to learn a new science and new jargon to start talking about Boyce Codd Normal Form and Heath's Theorem and whether Ted Codd was a nutter when he dreamt up NULL, and all the rest of that stuff. If I have to get basic concepts about organising data across to someone I will try to do it Paul's way - I don't want to introduce the idea of time-dependent data until after I have sold the basic idea that you have keys and try to structure things so that the keys tell the whole story. The business guys know what the whole story is, probably better than I do, because business is their job, while IT is mine - if they need time-dependent data they'll tell me and we can talk about how to do it. This keeping the theory technical jargon out of initial education and only bringing it in once there's already enough understanding to make it meaningful is something I've learnt the hard way (more than once, as I tend to forget it) and I'm very happy to see another reminder of it.Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:21:40 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]Lempster (2/14/2011)[/b][hr]Brilliant and funny article Paul. I wonder if Daniel Vettori really does wear wasabi lip balm?! :-P[/quote]He does, and he buys it from Bob :laugh:Mon, 14 Feb 2011 02:28:24 GMTPaul Whitehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxBrilliant and funny article Paul. I wonder if Daniel Vettori really does wear wasabi lip balm?! :-PMon, 14 Feb 2011 02:10:11 GMTLempsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspxBeautiful article...:-)Tue, 08 Feb 2011 05:40:48 GMTbalasoiuoliviahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]David Portas (1/26/2011)[/b][hr]There are some but not many others who have produced similar content and the same high quality as Fabian Pascal's output. 10 years after it's publication, Pascal's "Practical Issues" book remains one of my regular must-read recommendations. Judging from some of the content on this site, even some of its regular contributors would do well to read his and similar works.[/quote]Don't mistake my distaste for Fabian's style for opposition to the core message that he and others have been trying to disseminate all these years. Not that I think for one moment that the TransRelational Model or Tutorial D are about to replace SQL or semi-relational databases.My view is that a confrontational and intolerant style just polarizes opinion, and encourages the stream of almost-religious flame wars on this topic that so many of us find tedious in the extreme.If the relational model is failing (and it has had a while to bed in now) a large part of the blame lies with some of its proponents' failure to engage with people.One of the goals of this series of articles is to try a different, more inclusive approach, while hopefully still getting the important messages across. We'll see how we go.Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:50:21 GMTPaul Whitehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1049036-2669-1.aspx[quote][b]kenambrose (1/26/2011)[/b][hr]Yes I can see, based on the approach offered in your article, that you would consider such commitment to Codd's work "zealotry" and dismiss it as entertainment...[/quote]No you are quite wrong. I simply prefer the writing style of people like Hugh Darwen and Chris Date for example.Regarding the approach taken in this first article, you are welcome to your opinion, but be aware that is all it is.Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:08:04 GMTPaul White