>>There is no such thing as "too much normalization" either a design is normalized or it is not.
>
>Well - play with semantics if you like - read my other post to Doug dodge - it points out that a "fully normalized" database is essentially a concept hat few people EVER actually work with.

Ken,

I'll preface my stastements with the comment that I am a stickler for accuracy in terminology. If the definitions of things vary then there can be no meanignful communication. That said, there are 6 rules of normalization and none of them talk about how many or few entities that there should be. They focus on existing entity designs and the recognition of anomalies and potential anomalies in those entities. If a design reaches the 5th normal form then it is "normalized" if it is not in the 5th Normal Form it is NOT normalized. There are no gradients of normalization, no slightly normal, or partially normal. Either a design is in a normal form or it is not in that normal form. Confusing normalization with relational design is acommon error, normalization is done after the initial design is completed.

To support this point I refer to Fleming and von Halle "Handbook of Realtional Database Design which lists and describes over 180 relational design "rules" while there are only 6 normal forms. To catagorize all relational design rules as "normalization" is an extreme misunderstanding of what normlaization actually is.

>I agree with the valuable tool part but disagree that it is not a "holy grail" to many "over-educated under-common-sensed" (as my late father used to put it) designers who never had to sit down and actually use the applications and databases they create. I have been on projects - big projects - where the DB was normailzed into unusability. I was wondering when they were going to come up with the 'alphabet" and "digit" tables and create a whole database of foreign keys!!!

Personal slights are not helpful here. I choose not to ignore the decades of experiencve that went into the development of the normalization process and you chose to readily dismiss them.

>and "theory over practicality" is not only tiresome - but loathsome to me :-) To borrow from the old saying - those who can do - those who can't write books on relational theory :-)

"Normalization is formalized common sense." That is a direct quote from Chris Date and I agree. Too much is dismissed as normalization nissues that ahve absolutely nothing to do with normalization.