Again, this is your assertion, but I'm looking for the basis.

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Office/Access MVP

"Jamie Collins" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 16 Aug, 13:04, "Jeff Boyce" -
DISCARD_HYPHEN_TO_END wrote:
I'm curious why the same admonition about rarely needing to store
calculated
values in a table would have to be applied to views, i.e., your "virtual
tables"? Do you have a reference so I can read up more on this?

I would have no idea where to look for such a reference. Normalization
applies to logical tables. The distinction between base tables and
virtual tables is a SQL (the language) concept.

You can create a SQL table with no key; likewise, you can create a SQL
table that is denormalized. But if you buy in to the idea of aiming
for the highest possible normal form -- and I suggest that you should
-- then why would you not apply it virtual tables? Should a VIEW have
a key? I'd say so.

I'm probably not the best person to defend a normalization stance
because personally I don't have too much of a problem with calculated
columns in a base table a) if there's a good reason for doing so and
b) when integrity constraints are present to prevent values going 'out
of sync'.

A phrase that comes to mind from long past studies for taxation exams:
"Strict rules modified in practice."

Jamie.

--