undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjonahx9y ago0 comments

> In transaction management, transactions might have a sender_id and receiver_id

in normal form, shouldn't you have "transactions", "transaction_senders", and "transaction_receivers" anyway? similarly for the other cases?

i know sometimes the simplicity of a single table is a valid choice, so your point still stands, but it does feel like the examples are cases of "well, if you're were doing the right way(TM), that wouldn't happen"

0 comments

dsp12349y ago

shouldn't you have "transactions", "transaction_senders", and "transaction_receivers"

were doing the right way(TM), that wouldn't happen

Having a separate transaction_senders and transaction_receivers wouldn't be the right way(TM) unless it's possible to have multiple senders/receivers. If a transaction can only have 1 sender/receiver then normalization is complete when the sender/receiver data is removed from 'transactions' table and replaced with the sender_id and receiver_id columns.

When introducing transaction_senders/transaction_receivers tables without further constraints, it would be immediately possible to have multiple transaction senders and multiple transaction receivers for a single transaction, which is likely an error.

level39y ago

These examples depend on the use case. If you are guaranteed to only have one sender and one receiver, then having them in the same table is already normal form.

Perhaps (?) a less controversial example is a table of flights between airports. Should a single flight have departure_ids and destination_ids? (assuming we treat legs as separate flights)

Or what about package delivery? Do we need sender_ids and receiver_ids there?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse