M
Mike Revis
Hi Group,
In the context of normalization. If I understand it correctly.
I have a table with ten fields. One of those fields only receives data in
about 5% of the records. I should move that field to its own table. ??
I have 6 tables with any number of fields. One or more of those fields in
any one of those tables only receives data in about 5% of the records. I
should move each of the offending fields in each table to its own table. ??
Would it be practical to make one table that contains all of the offending
fields?
As I think about it. Probably not. The sixth table isn't connected to the
first table.
pk1 -> fk1/pk2 ->fk2/pk3 -> fk3
My application is pretty small. 6 tables and about 16,000 records in 5
years.
By way of explanation. I have so many rarely populated fields because I have
tried to cover every possible senario. Even the ones that only occur once in
a year.
As always any thoughts, comments or suggestions are welcome.
Best regards,
Mike
In the context of normalization. If I understand it correctly.
I have a table with ten fields. One of those fields only receives data in
about 5% of the records. I should move that field to its own table. ??
I have 6 tables with any number of fields. One or more of those fields in
any one of those tables only receives data in about 5% of the records. I
should move each of the offending fields in each table to its own table. ??
Would it be practical to make one table that contains all of the offending
fields?
As I think about it. Probably not. The sixth table isn't connected to the
first table.
pk1 -> fk1/pk2 ->fk2/pk3 -> fk3
My application is pretty small. 6 tables and about 16,000 records in 5
years.
By way of explanation. I have so many rarely populated fields because I have
tried to cover every possible senario. Even the ones that only occur once in
a year.
As always any thoughts, comments or suggestions are welcome.
Best regards,
Mike