One of the reasons why referential integrity should not be enforced is performance. Because Db has to validate all updates against relationships, it just makes things slower but what are the other pros and cons of enforcing and not enforcing?
Because relationships are maintained in the business logic layer anyway, it just makes them redundant for db to do it. What are your thoughts on it?
The database is responsible for data. That's it. Period.
If referential integrity is not done in the database, then it's not integrity. It's just trusting people not to do bad things, in which case you probably shouldn't even worry about password-protecting your data either :-)
Who's to say you won't get someone writing their own JDBC-connected client to totally screw up the data, despite your perfectly crafted and bug-free business layer (the fact that it probably won't be bug-free is another issue entirely, mandating that the DB should protect itself).
First of all, it's almost impossible to make it really work correctly. To have any chance of working right, you need to wrap a lot of the cascading modifications as transactions, so you don't have things out of sync while you've changed one part of the database, but are still updating others that depend on the first. This means code that should be simple and aware only of business logic suddenly needs to know about all sorts of concurrency issues.
Second, keeping it working is almost impossible to hope for -- every time anybody touches the business logic, they need to deal with those concurrency issues again.
Third, this makes the referential integrity difficult to understand -- in the future, when somebody wants to learn about your database structure, they'll have to reverse engineer it out of your business logic. With it in the database, it's separate, so what you have to look at only deals with referential integrity, not all sorts of unrelated issues. You have (for example) direct chains of logic showing what a modification to a particular field will trigger. At least for quite a few databases, that logic can be automatically extracted and turned into fairly useful documentation (e.g., tree diagrams showing dependencies). Extracting the same kind of information from the BLL is more likely to be a fairly serious project.
There are certainly some points in the other direction, and reasons to craft all of this by hand -- scalability and performance being the most obvious. When/if you go that route, however, you should be aware of what you're giving up to get that performance. In some cases, it's a worthwhile tradeoff -- but in other cases it's not, and you need information to make a reasoned decision.
Relationships may be maintained in a business logic layer. Unless you can guarantee 100% beyond any doubt that your BLL is and always will be bug-free, then you don't have data integrity. And you can't make that guarantee.
Also, if another app will ever touch your database, it isn't required to follow (read: reimplement, maybe in a subtlely wrong way) the rules in your BLL. It could corrupt the data, even if you somehow managed to be one of the 3 programmers on Earth to write bug-free code.
The database, meanwhile, enforces the same rules for everybody -- and rules enforced by the database are far less likely to be overlooked when you're updating, since the DB won't allow it.
Have a listen to Dan Pritchett, Technical Fellow at eBay on why certain database constructs such as transactions and referential integrity are not the mandates that textbooks might indicate they should be... It comes down to the types of data, the volume of queries and business requirements. Balance those and it will lead you to pragmatic solutions, not dogmatic answers...
However, do not assume that keeping relationships in the BLL will protect your data. You cannot guarantee that future developers won't expose new APIs that bypass the BLL for "performance" reasons, or simple lack of understanding of your architecture...
The performance assumption on which the question is based is incorrect as a general rule. Usually if you require RI to be enforced then the database is the most efficient place to do it, NOT the application - otherwise the application has to requery more data in order to be able to validate RI outside the database.
Also, RI constraints in the database are useful for the query optimiser for making other queries more efficient. Integrity constraints in the application can't achieve that.
Lastly, the cost of maintaining integrity constraints in every application is generally more expensive and complex than doing it once in one place.
But Colonel Ingus, if you've got the customer with an id in the session you've already probed the database! The problem is when you then write your sales order away, but didn't attach it to a product because you didn't prob for a product. One way or another you'll end up with orphaned records, just like the very large company I'm currently working for has. We have customers with no history and history with no customers; customers with outstanding balances who've never bought anything and goods sold to customers who don't exist - interesting business concepts - and it keeps a team of very frustrated support staff in full time employment trying to sort it out. It would be far less expensive to have put RI on everything and bought a bigger box to sort out any perceived performance problems.
A lot has already been said about the fact that the DB should be the final place to validate/control your constraints (and I couldn't agree more)
If the data is important, then your application won't be the last to access the database and it won't be the only one.
But there is another very important fact about referential integrity (and other constraints): it documents your datamodel and makes the dependencies between the tables explicit.
As far as performance is concerned, defining FKs (or other constraints) in the database can make things even faster in certain cases, because the DBMS can rely on the constraints and make approriate optimizations.
It depends on the data, if its highly transactional data such as business transactions and what not where frequent updates are happening then enforcing the business rules in the database is extremely important.. But for everything else the performance impact may not be worth it..
What paxdiablo and dportas said. And my two cents. There are two other considerations.
In order to validate referential integrity for a new insert, you have to do a probe into the database to verify that the reference is valid. You just nullfied the performance gain that led you to want to enforce integrity in the application. It's actually faster to let the DBMS enforce referential integrity.
Beyond that, consider the case where you have more than one application all reading and writing data in a single database. If you enforce referential integrity in the business application layer, you have to make sure that all of the applications do things right. Otherwise, some aberrant application could store invalid refrences, and the problem could surface when a different application went to use the data. That's a real mess.
Better to have the DBMS enforce the data rules for all the applications.
If you are maintaining the relationships in the business layer, you can guarantee that a few years down the pike you will have bad data in the database. The business layer is the worst possible place to do that.
Further, when you replace the business layer with something else you have to redefine all these things. Datbases often outlast the original application they are written for by many years, put the correct realtionships and constraints in the datbase where they belong.
What happens when you try to insert a record into the database and it fails referential integrity? You get an error from the database. Then you have to change your code so that it doesn't try to insert invalid data. To avoid ref integrity errors your code MUST know which data is which. Therefore, referential integrity is useless.
Walter Mitty said "In order to validate referential integrity for a new insert, you have to do a probe into the database to verify that the reference is valid." Sigh... this is complete nonsense. If I have a Customer object in the session (that's memory, aka RAM for some of you fellas), I know the Customer's ID and can use it to insert a SalesOrder object. There is no need to look up the Customer.
I am on a system now with tight Referential Integrity and Hibernate wrapped around it with its gross tenticles. It's the slowest system I have ever seen. I did not design it and if I had, it would be many times faster AND easier to maintain. Hibernate sucks.
Related
after a few discussions with a collegue we still not have the same meaning about this topic.
In my opinion it makes more sense to create a properly designed Database with all including relations.
Im not really experienced in this area, this is why im asking you.
Advantages in my opinion
- No "wrong" inserts because of the relation conflicts in the Database
- Database and Program is strictly seperated
- Several programms for the same Datasource requires less work to customize
- Making the use of LINQ much easier
- and many more.... ?
Possible disadvantages of this way?
What are the advantages of not related Tables?
Transactional systems should "always" have the referential integrity enforced as close to the database as possible. Most people would agree that this is best done right inside the database itself. You have correctly recognized many of the advantages of letting the DBMS enforce referential integrity.
I said "always" above because I believe in common sense and deliberate decisions not rules of thumb.
One reason why someone may not want to enforce referential integrity within the database is that you have a cyclical relationship where the parent and the child need to point to each other and it is not possible to insert one record because the other isn't there yet. This leaves you with a so-called catch-22. In this case, you may need to enforce the referential integrity in program logic. Still, the best place for this is in the data layer, not in the application layer.
Another reason why some people don't worry about referential integrity is when the data is read-only. This can happen in a reporting database or data warehouse. Referential integrity in the database creates indexes which are used to enforce the relationships. This can sometimes be a space issue, but more often it is just a problem with making the data warehouse load harder because of the order of operations required.
One more reason why referential integrity is sometimes not used is that archiving old transactional data can get tricky because of complex interrelationships between master tables and transaction tables. You can easily find yourself in a position where it's impossible to delete any data, no matter how old it is, because it is somehow related to something that is related to another thing that is needed by something current.
Having said all of this you should definitely start from the position of using referential integrity features of your database and only back away from this if you have a really good, well considered reason.
Of course !!! You must enforce the referenctial integrity within your database model ! Safer, more efficient, guaranteed data integrity, and you do not rely on the programmer. No discussion here.
Not related tables are ONLY usable if you are just building a "reporting db" that downloads nightly data from various systems, for example.
I was wondering how useful foreign keys really are in a database. Essentially, if the developers know what keys the different tables depend on, they can write the queries just as though there was a foreign key, right?
Also, I do see how to foreign-key constraints help prevent all sorts of bugs with data integrity, but say for example, the programmers do a good job of preserving data integrity, how necessary are foreign keys really?
If you don't care about referential integrity then you are right. But.... you should care about referential integrity.
The problem is that people make mistakes. Computers do not.
Regarding your comment:
but say for example, the programmers do a good job of
preserving data integrity
Someone will eventually make a mistake. No one is perfect. Also if you bring someone new in you aren't always sure of their ability to write "perfect" code.
In addition to that you lose the ability to do cascading deletes and a number of other features that having defined foreign keys allow.
I think that assuming that programmers will always preserve data integrity is a risky assumption.
There's no reason why you wouldn't create foreign keys, and being able to guarantee integrity instead of just hoping for integrity is reason enough.
Not using referential integrity in a database is like not using seatbelts in cars. It will provide you with measurable improvements in taking you from A->B, but it will make "real" difference only in the most extreme cases. Why take the "risk" unless you really have to?
The underlaying reason people ask this question is always performance.
Foreign keys give the optimizer much more information to work with, and it will potentially produce better execution plans. It's not like a specific query will be % percent faster with enabled constraints, it's more like you effectively eliminate entire classes of problems due to bad execution plans. You also enable the optimizer to rewrite queries in ways that just isn't possible without the constraints (join elimination for example).
Starting right here, I would like to start a myth that referential integrity always increases performance in databases. I'm fairly confident that if 100 people designed their databases with full integrity checking, less than 5 people will actually have to consider spend a whopping 1 second to disable them for performance reasons. Out of those 5 people, there will be close to 0 people who find that they need to disable 100% of the constraints.
Foreign keys are invaluable as a means of ensuring integrity, and even if you trust your developers to never (!) make errors the cost of having them is usually well worth it.
Foreign keys also serve as documentation, in that you can see what relates to what. This information is typically also used by tools, such as for generating reports, creating data sets from table definitions, object-relational mappers, etc. Even if you do not use any of these today, having FKs will make it easier to tread that path later.
Foreign keys also allow you to define cascade rules, which e.g. can be used to to delete associated records in related tables when a row in one table is deleted.
Only if you have ridiculously high loads should you consider bypassing FKs.
Edit: updated answer to include points from other answers (reports, cascades).
You said
but say for example, the programmers
do a good job of preserving data
integrity
The expression you were looking for is, "I'm 100% certain that every programmer and every database administrator will manually preserve data integrity perfectly no matter what application touches this database, no matter how complex the database becomes, from now until the time it's decommissioned."
You don't have to use them but why wouldn't you?
They are there to help. From making life easier with cascade updates and cascade deletes, to guaranteeing that constraints aren't violated.
Maybe the application honors the constraints, but isn't it useful to have them clearly specified? You could document them, or you could put them in the database where most programmers expect to find constraints they are supposed to conform to (a better idea I think!).
Finally, if you ever need to import data into this database which doesn't go via the front-end, you may accidently import data which violates the constraints and breaks the application.
I'd definetly not recommend skipping the relationships in a database
Foreign Keys make life so much easier when using report builders and data analysis tools. Just select one table, check the include related tables box and BAM! you've got you're report built. Ok Ok, it's not that easy, but they certianly save time in that respect.
Use constraints rather than application logic to enforce integrity because it is generally easier, cheaper and more reliable to maintain constraints in one place (the database) rather than in every application.
I understand from one of your comments that your motivation for asking the question is that you think leaving out the keys may make it easier to evolve the database design during development. In my experience you are wrong about that. I find that it's actually better to be more restrictive with constraints in the early stages of development. If in doubt, create the constraint because it's much easier to remove constraints later than it is to create them. Removing a constraint will tend to break fewer things than adding one and generally requires less testing and fewer code changes to achieve.
Another point to make is that when you scrap your current user interface and use a new one with shiny new tools, you won't lose your referential integrity because the new devs have no idea what should be related to what. Databases are generally in use much much longer than user interfaces. They are also often used by more than one application interface and then you have the problem of different interfaces trying to enforce different integrity rules.
I will also point out that I have had occasion to look at the data in, quite literally, hundreds of databases and have not found one yet that has good data if they didn't set up FKs. This bad data complicates reporting, it complicates imports and exports to and from clients and other third party vendors who need or provide the data. And if the bad data is in a financial area, it could also have legal and accounting implications. I can even remember one time the company had thousands of bad inventory records where the actual product that was stored was no longer identifiable (nor the location) which also created issues with defining the value of the inventory necessary for financial reporting. This is not only bad from a perspective of not knowing what parts you have on hand, but it enables people to steal parts without being caught simply by deleting the part number from the part table (this particular place didn't have auditing in place either.).
Folks have offered up some good answers above. However, one important point I didn't see mentioned is that foreign keys make your entity relationship diagrams (ERDs) easier to generate and much more meaningful. Without FKs, you either need to depict the FK relationships on your ERD manually (painful for you) or not at all (painful for others, and perhaps even for yourself once your memory of the implied FK relationships starts to fade over time). With FKs explicitly defined, most tools that automatically generate ERDs from database object definitions will automatically detect and depict the FK relationships.
Perhaps the question should be "How bad are orphan records?". In many cases orphaned records aren't really going to hurt anything. Yes these records may persist until the end of time but how bad is this really? Cascading updates or deletes are rarely useful features. Referential integrity sounds nice but I think is not as important as we have been lead to believe. The biggest benefit to FK's is the documentation they provide. In my experience FK's for referential integrity are way more trouble than they are worth.
I am having the same question today, and found many articles talking about why you don't have to use foreign keys online. But so far, 10 of 11 answers here say you should have FKs.
I am not a db expert and just want to share some points I found online about when and why you don't have FKs:
Some points from 9 reasons why there are no foreign keys constraints:
Performance
Legacy data
Full table reload
Higher level framework
Cross database relations
Database platform agnostic
Open for change
Lazy architect
Keep model a secret
Some points from At GitHub we do not use foreign keys, ever, anywhere.
FKs are in your way to shard your database.
FKs are a performance impact.
FKs don't work well with online schema migrations.
Note: I don't have any opinions. Just sharing some online articles to provide a different answer to most of the current ones.
I have seen in my past experience that most of the people don't use physical relationships in tables and they try to remember them and apply them through coding only.
Here 'Physical Relationships' refer to Primary Key, Foreign Key, Check constraints, etc.
While designing a database, people try to normalize the database on paper and keep things documented. Like, if I have to create a database for a marketing company, I will try to understand its requirements.
For example, what fields are mandatory, what fields will contain only (a or b or c) etc.
When all the things are clear, then why are most of the people afraid of the constraints?
Don't they want to manage things?
Do they have a lack of knowledge
(which I don't think is so)?
Are they not confident about future
problems?
Is it really a tough job managing all these entities?
What is the reason in your opinion?
I always have the DBMS enforce both primary key and foreign key constraints; I often add check constraints too. As far as I am concerned, the data is too important to run the risk of inaccurate data being stored.
If you think of the database as a series of stored true logical propositions, you will see that if the database contains a false proposition - an error - then you can argue to any conclusion you want. Given a false premise, any conclusion is true.
Why don't other people use PK and FK constraints, etc?
Some are unaware of their importance (so lack of knowledge is definitely a factor, even a major factor). Others are scared that they will cost too much in performance, forgetting that one error that has to be fixed may easily use up all the time saved by not having the DBMS do the checking for you. I take the view that if the current DBMS can't handle them well, it might be (probably is) time to change DBMS.
Many developers will check the constraints in code above the database before they actually go to perform an operation. Sometimes, this is driven by user experience considerations (we don't want to present choices / options to users that can't be saved to the database). In other cases, it may be driven by the pain associated with executing a statement, determining why it failed, and then taking corrective action. Most people would consider code more maintainable if it did the check upfront, along with other business logic that might be at play, rather than taking corrective action through an exception handler. (Not that this is necessarily an ideal line of thinking, but it is a prevalent one.) In any case, if you are doing the check in advance of issuing the statement, and not particularly conscious of the fact that the database might get touched by applications / users who are not coming in through your integrity-enforcing code, then you might conclude that database constraints are unnecessary, especially with the performance hit that could be incurred from their use. Also, if you are checking integrity in the application code above the database, one might consider it a violation of DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) to implement logically equivalent checks in the database itself. The two manifestations of integrity rules (those in database constraints and those in application code above the database) could in principle become out-of-sync if not managed carefully.
Also, I would not discount option 2, that many developers don't know much about database constraints, too readily.
Well, I mean, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and development strategy I suppose, but in my humble opinion these people are almost certainly wrong :)
The reason, however, someone may wish to avoid constraints is efficiency. Not because constraints are slow, but because storing redundant data (i.e. caching) is a very effective way of speeding up (well, avoiding) an expensive calculation. This is an acceptable approach, when implemented properly (i.e. the cache is updated a regular/appropriate intervals, generally I do this with a trigger).
As to the motivation to not us FKs without a caching motivation, I can't imagine it. Perhaps they aim to be 'flexible' in their DB structure. If so, fine, but then don't use a relational DB, because it's pointless. Non-relational DBs (OO dbs) certainly have their place, and may even arguably be better (quite arguable, but interesting to argue) but it's a mistake to use a relational DB and not use it's core properties.
I would always define PK and FK constraints. especially when using an ORM. it really makes the life easy for everybody to let the ORM reverse engineer the database instead of manually configuring it to use some PKs and FKs
There are several reasons for not enforcing relationships in descending order of importance:
People-friendly error handling.
Your program should check constraints and send an intelligible message to the user. For some reason normal people dont like "SQL exception code -100013 goble rule violated for table gook'.
Operational flexibility.
You dont really want your operators trying to figure out which order you must load your tables in at 3 a.m., nor do you want your testers pulling their hair out 'cause they cannot reset the database back to its starting position.
Efficiency.
Cheking constraints does consume IO and CPU.
Functionality.
Its a cheap way to save details for later recovery. For instance in an on line order system you could leave the detail item rows in the table when the users kills a parent order, if he later reinstates the order the details re-appear as if by a miracle -- you acheive this extra feature by deleteing lines of code. (course you need some housekeeping process but it is trivial!)
As things get more complex and more tables and relationships are needed in the database, how can you ensure the database developer remembers to check all of them? When you makea change to the schema that adds a new "informal" relationship, how can you ensure all the application code which might be affected gets changed?
Suddenly you could be deleting records that should stay because they have related data the developer forgot to check when writng the delete process or because that process was in place before the last ten related tables were added to the schema.
It is foolhardy in the extreme to not formally set up PK/FK relationships. I process data received from many different vendors and databases. You can tell which ones have data integrity problems most likely caused by a failure to explicitly define relationships by the poor quality of their data.
When would a database design be described as overnormalized? Is this characterization an absolute one? Or is it dependent on the way it is used in the application? Thanks.
In the general sense, I think that overnormalized is when you are doing so many JOINs to retrieve data that it is causing notable performance penalties and deadlocks on your database, even after you've tuned the heck out of your indexes. Obviously, for huge applications and sites like MySpace or eBay, de-normalization is a scaling requirement.
As a developer for several small businesses, I tell you that in my experience it's always been easier to go from normalized -> denormalized than the other way around, and in fact going the other way around (to avoid duplication of data now that the business requirements have changed a year or so later) is much more difficult.
When I read general statements such as "you should put the address in your customers table instead of a separate address table so you can avoid the join", I shudder, because you just know that a year from now somebody's going to ask you to do something with addresses that you totally didn't foresee, like maintaining an audit trail, or storing multiple per customer. If your database allows you to create an indexed view, you can sidestep that issue until you get to the point where your dataset is so large that it can't possibly exist or be served by a single server or set of servers in a 1-write, many-read environment. For most of us, I don't think that scenario happens very often.
When in doubt, I aim for third normal form with some exceptions (for example, having a field contain a CSV-list of separated strings because I know I'll never ever look at the data from the other angle). When I need to consolidate, I'll look at my views or indexes first. Hope this helps.
It's always a question of the application domain. It's usually a question of correctness, but occasionally a question of performance.
There's one case where I can think of a prima facie case of overnormalization: say you have an order + orderitem, and the orderitem references productID, and leaves pricing to the product.price. Since that introduces temporal coupling, you've incorrectly normalized because the overnormalization affects already shipped orders, unless prices absolutely never change. You can certainly argue that this is simply a modeling error (as in the comments), but I see under-normalization as a modeling error in most cases, too.
The other category is performance related. In principle, I think there are generally better solutions to performance than denormalizing data, such as materialized views, but if your application suffers from the performance consequences of many joins, it may be worth assessing whether denormalizing can help you. I think these cases are often over-emphasized, because people sometimes reach for denormalization before they properly profile their application.
People also often forget about alternatives, like keeping a canonical form of the database and using warehousing or other strategies for frequently-read, but infrequently changed data.
Normalization is absolute. A database follows Normal Forms or it does not. There are a half-dozen normal forms. Mostly, they have names like First through Fifth. Plus there's a Boyce-Codd Normal Form.
Normalization exists for precisely one purpose -- to prevent "update anomalies".
Normalization isn't subjective. It isn't a judgement. Each table and relationship among tables either does or does not follow a normal form.
Consequently, you can't be "over-normalized" or "under-normalized".
Having said that, normalization has a performance cost. Some people elect to denormalize in various ways to improve performance. The most common sensible denormalization is to break 3NF and include derived data.
A common mistake is to break 2NF and have duplicate copies of a functional dependency between a key and non-key value. This requires extra updates or -- worse -- triggers to keep the copies in parallel.
Denormalization of a transactional database should be a case-by-case situation.
A data warehouse, also, rarely follows any of the transactional normalization rules because it's (essentially) never updated.
"Over-normalization" could mean that a database is too slow because of a large number of joins. This may also mean that the database has outgrown the hardware. Or that the applications haven't been designed to scale.
The most common issue here is that folks try to use a transactional database for reporting while transactions are going on. The locking for transactions interferes with reporting.
"Under-normalization," however, means that there are NF violations and needless processing is being done to handle the replicated data and correct update anomalies.
When the performance cost exceeds the benefit towards the application's intended purpose.
Normalize your OLTP databases, and denormalize your OLAP databases. Each has a mission that dictates its schema. Like normalized transaction databases, data warehouses exist for a reason. A complete system needs both.
A lot of people are talking about performance. I think a key issue is flexibility. In general, the more normalized your database, the more flexible it is.
We currently use an "over-normalized" database because, in our operating environment, client requirements change on a monthly basis. By "over-normalizing" we can adopt our software accordingly, without changing the database structure.
My take on this:
Always normalize as much as you are able to do. I usually go crazy on normalization, and try to design something that could handle every thinkable future extensions. What I end up with is a database design that is extremely flexible... and impossible to implement.
Then the real job starts: De-normalization. Here you solve what you know would be problematic to implement and/or would slow the queries down because of too many joins.
This way you know what you scarify for make the design usable.
Edit: Documentations! I forgot to mention that documenting the de-normalization is very important. It is extremely helpful when you take over a project to know the reason behind the choices.
Third Normal Form (3NF) is considered the optimal level of normalization for many a rational database application. This is a state in which, as Bill Kent once summarized, every "non-key field [in every table within a particular a relational database management system, or RDBMS] must provide a fact about the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key." 3NF is a term that was introduced by E.F. Codd, inventor of the relational model for database management. Generally, the data that a software application is dependent on, especially an application used for an Online Transaction Processing System (OLTP), will fare well in 3NF. This normal form by definition reduces database size by calling for a minimum repetition of row/column data, and maximizes query efficiency and ease of application maintenance. 3NF achieves that by requiring that a database's tables (i.e., its schema) be broken down into separate tables related by primary/foreign keys--basically until Kent's rule holds true (well, I've stated it this way for ease of reading but the actual definition of 3NF is much more detailed than that). In contrast, overnormalization implies increasing the number of joins required in a query between related tables. This comes as a result of breaking down the database schema into a much more granular level than 3NF. However, though normalization past the 3rd degree can often be considered overnormalization, the negative connotation of the term "overnormalization" can sometimes be unwarranted. Overnormalization may be desirable in some applications which by design require 4NF (and beyond) due to the complexity and versatility of the application software. An example of that is a highly customizable and extensible commercial database program for some industry in which it is sold to end users requiring an open API. But then the reverse can be desirable as well--that is, denormalization--most notably, when designing an Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) database used strictly to summarize data from an OLTP database just for querying/reporting--such as a data warehouse. In this case the data must by necessity reside in a highly denormalized format (i.e, 1NF, or 2NF). It's often under these constraints--when there are high demands for efficient querying and reporting--that we find database and application programmers calling a database, "overnormalized". But as Redgate's Tony Davis once said--taking into account today's much more advanced and efficient database software and storage systems--"the performance hit from multiple joins in a query is negligible. If your database is slow, it isn’t because it is ‘over-normalized’!" So in conclusion, this characterization--overnormalization--isn't an absolute one, and it is dependent on the way it is used in the application. In Kent's words, "The normalization rules are designed to prevent update anomalies and data inconsistencies. . . [but] there is no obligation to fully normalize all records when actual performance requirements are taken into account. . . The normalized design enhances the integrity of the data, by minimizing redundancy and inconsistency, but at some possible performance cost for certain retrieval applications. . . [Thus,] the desirability of normalization has to be assessed, in terms of its performance impact on retrieval applications."
..or hitting limits on the number of joins your RDBMS will do.
If performance is affected by too many joins, creating de-normalized tables for reporting purposes can speed things up. By copying the data into new tables, it may be possible to run reports with no joins at all.
In my experience, I've never seen a normalized database that contains postal addresses, as it's usually acceptable to store the address as a string. Ideally, there would be tables for countries, counties / states, cities, districts and streets. I've not come across anyone who needs to report on street level, so it hasn't been necessary. The addresses have only be used for postal contact, so are treated as a single entity.
Normalization leads to many essential and desirable characteristics, including aesthetic pleasure. Besides it is also theoretically "correct". In this context, denormalization is applied as a compromise, a correction to achieve performance.
Is there any reason other than performance that a database could be denormalized?
The two most common reasons to denormalize are:
Performance
Ignorance
The former should be verified with profiling, while the latter should be corrected with a rolled-up newspaper ;-)
I would say a better mantra would be "normalize for correctness, denormalize for speed - and only when necessary"
To fully understand the import of the original question, you have to understand something about team dynamics in systems development, and the kind of behavior (or misbehavior) different roles / kinds of people are predisposed to. Normalization is important because it isn't just a dispassionate debate of design patterns -- it also has a lot to do with how systems are designed and managed over time.
Database people are trained that data integrity is a paramount issue. We like to think in terms of 100% correctness of data, so that once data is in the DB, you don't have to think about or deal with it ever being logically wrong. This school of thought places a high value on normalization, because it causes (forces) a team to come to grips with the underlying logic of the data & system. To consider a trivial example -- does a customer have just one name & address, or could he have several? Someone needs to decide, and the system will come to depend on that rule being applied consistently. That sounds like a simple issue, but multiply that issue by 500x as you design a reasonably complex system and you will see the problem -- rules can't just exist on paper, they have to be enforced. A well-normalized database design (with the additional help of uniqueness constraints, foreign keys, check values, logic-enforcing triggers etc.) can help you have a well-defined core data model and data-correctness rules, which is really important if you want the system to work as expected when many people work on different parts of the system (different apps, reports, whatever) and different people work on the system over time. Or to put it another way -- if you don't have some way to define and operationally enforce a solid core data model, your system will suck.
Other people (often, less experienced developers) don't see it this way. They see the database as at best a tool that's enslaved to the application they're developing, or at worst a bureaucracy to be avoided. (Note that I'm saying "less experienced" developers. A good developer will have the same awareness of the need for a solid data model and data correctness as a database person. They might differ on what's the best way to achieve that, but in my experience are reasonably open to doing those things in a DB layer as long as the DB team knows what they're doing and can be responsive to the developers). These less experienced folks are often the ones who push for denormalization, as more or less an excuse for doing a quick & dirty job of designing and managing the data model. This is how you end up getting database tables that are 1:1 with application screens and reports, each reflecting a different developer's design assumptions, and a complete lack of sanity / coherence between the tables. I've experienced this several times in my career. It is a disheartening and deeply unproductive way to develop a system.
So one reason people have a strong feeling about normalization is that the issue is a stand-in for other issues they feel strongly about. If you are sucked into a debate about normalization, think about the underlying (non-technical) motivation that the parties may be bringing to the debate.
Having said that, here's a more direct answer to the original question :)
It is useful to think of your database as consisting of a core design that is as close as possible to a logical design -- highly normalized and constrained -- and an extended design that addresses other issues like stable application interfaces and performance.
You should want to constrain and normalize your core data model, because to not do that compromises the fundamental integrity of the data and all the rules / assumptions your system is being built upon. If you let those issues get away from you, your system can get crappy pretty fast. Test your core data model against requirements and real-world data, and iterate like mad until it works. This step will feel a lot more like clarifying requirements than building a solution, and it should. Use the core data model as a forcing function to get clear answers on these design issues for everyone involved.
Complete your core data model before moving on to the extended data model. Use it and see how far you can get with it. Depending on the amount of data, number of users and patterns of use, you may never need an extended data model. See how far you can get with indexing plus the 1,001 performance-related knobs you can turn in your DBMS.
If you truly tap out the performance-management capabilities of your DBMS, then you need to look at extending your data model in a way that adds denormalization. Note this is not about denormalizing your core data model, but rather adding new resources that handle the denorm data. For example, if there are a few huge queries that crush your performance, you might want to add a few tables that precompute the data those queries would produce -- essentially pre-executing the query. It is important to do this in a way that maintains the coherence of the denormalized data with the core (normalized) data. For example, in DBMS's that support them, you can use a MATERIALIZED VIEW to make the maintenance of the denorm data automatic. If your DBMS doesn't have this option, then maybe you can do it by creating triggers on the tables where the underlying data exists.
There is a world of difference between selectively denormalizing a database in a coherent manner to deal with a realistic performance challenge vs. just having a weak data design and using performance as a justification for it.
When I work with low-to-medium experienced database people and developers, I insist they produce an absolutely normalized design ... then later may involve a small number of more experienced people in a discussion of selective denormalization. Denormalization is more or less always bad in your core data model. Outside the core, there is nothing at all wrong with denormalization if you do it in a considered and coherent way.
In other words, denormalizing from a normal design to one that preserves the normal while adding some denormal -- that deals with the physical reality of your data while preserving its essential logic -- is fine. Designs that don't have a core of normal design -- that shouldn't even be called de-normalized, because they were never normalized in the first place, because they were never consciously designed in a disciplined way -- are not fine.
Don't accept the terminology that a weak, undisciplined design is a "denormalized" design. I believe the confusion between intentionally / carefully denormalized data vs. plain old crappy database design that results in denormal data because the designer was a careless idiot is the root cause of many of the debates about denormalization.
Denormalization normally means some improvement in retrieval efficiency (otherwise, why do it at all), but at a huge cost in complexity of validating the data during modify (insert, update, sometimes even delete) operations. Most often, the extra complexity is ignored (because it is too damned hard to describe), leading to bogus data in the database, which is often not detected until later - such as when someone is trying to work out why the company went bankrupt and it turns out that the data was self-inconsistent because it was denormalized.
I think the mantra should go "normalize for correctness, denormalize only when senior management offers to give your job to someone else", at which point you should accept the opportunity to go to pastures new since the current job may not survive as long as you'd like.
Or "denormalize only when management sends you an email that exonerates you for the mess that will be created".
Of course, this assumes that you are confident of your abilities and value to the company.
Mantras almost always oversimplify their subject matter. This is a case in point.
The advantages of normalizing are more that merely theoretic or aesthetic. For every departure from a normal form for 2NF and beyond, there is an update anomaly that occurs when you don't follow the normal form and that goes away when you do follow the normal form. Departure from 1NF is a whole different can of worms, and I'm not going to deal with it here.
These update anomalies generally fall into inserting new data, updating existing data, and deleting rows. You can generally work your way around these anomalies by clever, tricky programming. The question then is was the benefit of using clever, tricky programming worth the cost. Sometimes the cost is bugs. Sometimes the cost is loss of adaptability. Sometimes the cost is actually, believe it or not, bad performance.
If you learn the various normal forms, you should consider your learning incomplete until you understand the accompanying update anomaly.
The problem with "denormalize" as a guideline is that it doesn't tell you what to do. There are myriad ways to denormalize a database. Most of them are unfortunate, and that's putting it charitably. One of the dumbest ways is to simply denormalize one step at a time, every time you want to speed up some particular query. You end up with a crazy mish mosh that cannot be understood without knowing the history of the application.
A lot of denormalizing steps that "seemed like a good idea at the time" turn out later to be very bad moves.
Here's a better alternative, when you decide not to fully normalize: adopt some design discipline that yields certain benefits, even when that design discipline departs from full normalization. As an example, there is star schema design, widely used in data warehousing and data marts. This is a far more coherent and disciplined approach than merely denormalizing by whimsy. There are specific benefits you'll get out of a star schema design, and you can contrast them with the update anomalies you will suffer because star schema design contradicts normalized design.
In general, many people who design star schemas are building a secondary database, one that does not interact with the OLTP application programs. One of the hardest problems in keeping such a database current is the so called ETL (Extract, Transform, and Load) processing. The good news is that all this processing can be collected in a handful of programs, and the application programmers who deal with the normalized OLTP database don't have to learn this stuff. There are tools out there to help with ETL, and copying data from a normalized OLTP database to a star schema data mart or warehouse is a well understood case.
Once you have built a star schema, and if you have chosen your dimensions well, named your columns wisely, and especially chosen your granularity well, using this star schema with OLAP tools like Cognos or Business Objects turns out to be almost as easy as playing a video game. This permits your data analysts to focus on analysing the data instead of learning how the container of the data works.
There are other designs besides star schema that depart from normalization, but star schema is worth a special mention.
Data warehouses in a dimensional model are often modelled in a (denormalized) star schema. These kinds of schemas are not (normally) used for online production or transactional systems.
The underlying reason is performance, but the fact/dimensional model also allows for a number of temporal features like slowly changing dimensions which are doable in traditional ER-style models, but can be incredibly complex and slow (effective dates, archive tables, active records, etc).
Don't forget that each time you denormalize part of your database, your capacity to further adapt it decreases, as risks of bugs in code increases, making the whole system less and less sustainable.
Good luck!
Normalization has nothing to do with performance. I can't really put it better than Erwin Smout did in this thread:
What is the resource impact from normalizing a database?
Most SQL DBMSs have limited support for changing the physical representation of data without also compromising the logical model, so unfortunately that's one reason why you may find it necessary to demormalize. Another is that many DBMSs don't have good support for multi-table integrity constraints, so as a workaround to implement those constraints you may be forced to put extraneous attributes into some tables.
Database normalization isn't just for theoretical correctness, it can help to prevent data corruption. I certainly would NOT denormalize for "simplicity" as #aSkywalker suggests. Fixing and cleaning corrupted data is anything but simple.
You don't normalize for 'correctness' per se. Here is the thing:
Denormalized table has the benefit of increasing performance but requires redundancy and more developer brain power.
Normalized tables has the benefit of reducing redundancy and increasing ease of development but requires performance.
It's almost like a classic balanced equation. So depending on your needs (such as how many that are hammering your database server) you should stick with normalized tables unless it is really needed. It is however easier and less costly for development to go from normalized to denormalized than vice versa.
No way. Keep in mind that what you're supposed to be normalizing is your relations (logical level), not your tables (physical level).
Denormalized data is much more often found at places where not enough normalization was done.
My mantra is 'normalize for correctness, eliminate for performance'. RDBMs are very flexible tools, but optimized for the OLTP situation. Replacing the RDBMS by something simpler (e.g. objects in memory with a transaction log) can help a lot.
I take issue with the assertion by folks here that Normalized databases are always associated with simpler, cleaner, more robust code. It is certainly true that there are many cases where fully normalized are associated with simpler code than partially denormalized code, but at best this is a guideline, not a law of physics.
Someone once defined a word as the skin of a living idea. In CS, you could say an object or table is defined in terms of the needs of the problem and the existing infrastructure, instead of being a platonic reflection of an ideal object. In theory, there will be no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, you do find variations from theory. This saying is particularly interesting for CS because one of the focuses of the field is to find these differences and to handle them in the best way possible.
Taking a break from the DB side of things and looking at the coding side of things, object oriented programming has saved us from a lot of the evils of spaghetti-coding, by grouping a lot of closely related code together under an object-class name that has an english meaning that is easy to remember and that somehow fits with all of the code it is associated with. If too much information is clustered together, then you end up with large amounts of complexity within each object and it is reminiscent of spaghetti code. If you make the clusters to small, then you can't follow threads of logic without searching through large numbers of objects with very little information in each object, which has been referred to as "Macaroni code".
If you look at the trade-off between the ideal object size on the programming side of things and the object size that results from normalizing your database, I will give a nod to those that would say it is often better to chose based on the database and then work around that choice in code. Especially because you have the ability in some cases to create objects from joins with hibernate and technologies like that. However I would stop far short of saying this is an absolute rule. Any OR-Mapping layer is written with the idea of making the most complex cases simpler, possibly at the expense of adding complexity to the most simple cases. And remember that complexity is not measured in units of size, but rather in units of complexity. There are all sorts of different systems out there. Some are expected to grow to a few thousand lines of code and stay there forever. Others are meant to be the central portal to a company's data and could theoretically grow in any direction without constraint. Some applications manage data that is read millions of times for every update. Others manage data that is only read for audit and ad-hoc purposes. In general the rules are:
Normalization is almost always a good idea in medium-sized apps or larger when data on both sides of the split can be modified and the potential modifications are independent of each other.
Updating or selecting from a single table is generally simpler than working with multiple tables, however with a well-written OR, this difference can be minimized for a large part of the data model space. Working with straight SQL, this is almost trivial to work around for an individual use case, albeit it in a non-object-oriented way.
Code needs to be kept relatively small to be manage-able and one effective way to do this is to divide the data model and build a service-oriented architecture around the various pieces of the data model. The goal of an optimal state of data (de)normalization should be thought of within the paradigm of your overall complexity management strategy.
In complex object hierarchies there are complexities that you don't see on the database side, like the cascading of updates. If you model relational foreign keys and crosslinks with an object ownership relationship, then when updating the object, you have to decide whether to cascade the update or not. This can be more complex than it would be in sql because of the difference between doing something once and doing something correctly always, sort of like the difference between loading a data file and writing a parser for that type of file. The code that cascades an update or delete in C++, java, or whatever will need to make the decision correctly for a variety of different scenarios, and the consequences of mistakes in this logic can be pretty serious. It remains to be proven that this can never be simplified with a bit of flexibility on the SQL side enough to make any sql complexities worthwhile.
There is also a point deserving delineation with one of the normalization precepts. A central argument for normalization in databases is the idea that data duplication is always bad. This is frequently true, but cannot be followed slavishly, especially when there are different owners for the different pieces of a solution. I saw a situation once in which one group of developers managed a certain type of transactions, and another group of developers supported auditability of these transactions, so the second group of developers wrote a service which scraped several tables whenever a transaction occurred and created a denormalized snapshot record stating, in effect, what was the state of the system at the time the transaction. This scenario stands as an interesting use case (for the data duplication part of the question at least), but it is actually part of a larger category of issues. Data constistency desires will often put certain constraints on the structure of data in the database that can make error handling and troubleshooting simpler by making some of the incorrect cases impossible. However this can also have the impact of "freezing" portions of data because changing that subset of the data would cause past transactions to become invalid under the consistancy rules. Obviously some sort of versioning system is required to sort this out, so the obvious question is whether to use a normalized versioning system (effective and expiration times) or a snapshot-based approach (value as of transaction time). There are several internal structure questions for the normalized version that you don't have to worry about with the snapshot approach, like:
Can date range queries be done efficiently even for large tables?
Is it possible to guarantee non-overlap of date ranges?
Is it possible to trace status events back to operator, transaction, or reason for change? (probably yes, but this is additional overhead)
By creating a more complicated versioning system, are you putting the right owners in charge of the right data?
I think the optimal goal here is to learn not only what is correct in theory, but why it is correct, and what are the consequences of violations, then when you are in the real world, you can decide which consequences are worth taking to gain which other benefits. That is the real challenge of design.
Reporting system and transaction system have different requirements.
I would recommend for transaction system, always use normalization for data correctness.
For reporting system, use normalization unless denormaliztion is required for whatever reason, such as ease of adhoc query, performance, etc.
Simplicity? Not sure if Steven is gonna swat me with his newspaper, but where I hang, sometimes the denormalized tables help the reporting/readonly guys get their jobs done without bugging the database/developers all the time...