1) Normalization has always been about physical storage. The specifics
about how it's stored is unimportant, but the fact that the data *is* stored
is. At its heart, normalization is about reducing redundant data, that is,
the data that is physically stored.

--
--Roger Carlson
MS Access MVP
Access Database Samples: www.rogersaccesslibrary.com
Want answers to your Access questions in your Email?
Free subscription:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/...UBED1=ACCESS-L

"Jamie Collins" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 16, 2:16 pm, "Roger Carlson"
wrote:
I don't see why this should be contradictory. The fact is the calculated
column is not "stored" in a Query, so the cases are not even similar.

Since when did normalization have anything to do with physical
storage?! Consider that in some SQLs (e.g. Oracle) VIEWs can be
materialized i.e. their data *are* physically stored.

I repeat: normalization applies to logical tables.

By
the same reasoning, we should never store a Join of two tables because
that
would produce data redundancy.

A JOIN in a query does not by necessarily result in a denormalized
structu you have to consider the whole: SELECT clause, WHERE
clause, GROUP BY clause, etc. But yes, the reasoning is the same:
reundant data in a VIEW, regardless of how it was derived, consistutes
denormalization.

Jamie.

--