Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Second normal form (2NF), in database normalization, is a normal form. A relation is in the second normal form if it fulfills the following two requirements: A relation is in the second normal form if it fulfills the following two requirements:
The objectives of normalization beyond 1NF (first normal form) were stated by Codd as: To free the collection of relations from undesirable insertion, update and deletion dependencies. To reduce the need for restructuring the collection of relations, as new types of data are introduced, and thus increase the life span of application programs.
The Computer Language Benchmarks Game site warns against over-generalizing from benchmark data, but contains a large number of micro-benchmarks of reader-contributed code snippets, with an interface that generates various charts and tables comparing specific programming languages and types of tests.
This comparison of programming languages compares how object-oriented programming languages such as C++, Java, Smalltalk, Object Pascal, Perl, Python, and others manipulate data structures. Object construction and destruction
In addition the types size_t and ptrdiff_t are defined in relation to the address size to hold unsigned and signed integers sufficiently large to handle array indices and the difference between pointers. ^d Perl 5 does not have distinct types. Integers, floating point numbers, strings, etc. are all considered "scalars".
This makes the program harder to read and maintain. Furthermore, it can become difficult to change the program, since any change may affect code in several other classes. With the mediator pattern, communication between objects is encapsulated within a mediator object. Objects no longer communicate directly with each other, but instead ...
every element of Y \ X, the set difference between Y and X, is a prime attribute (i.e., each attribute in Y \ X is contained in some candidate key). To rephrase Zaniolo's definition more simply, the relation is in 3NF if and only if for every non-trivial functional dependency X → Y, X is a superkey or Y \ X consists of prime attributes.
Even if you provide a mathematical definition of 1NF, being in 1NF will be independent from being in 2NF. The quote from the article is wrong if 1NF is included. 2NF and higher are defined mathematically, and these definitions are such that for each i > j > 1, every database in iNF is also in jNF. Hence, for all NFs above 1, the quote is correct.