I love your content and don't consider myself qualified to question you, but I am very confused by this article. It seems that you're contrasting a more normalized approach (which you associate to Kimball) with a less normalized approach (OBT). As Noah also pointed out, that's the complete opposite of what I'm finding in multiple other s…
I love your content and don't consider myself qualified to question you, but I am very confused by this article. It seems that you're contrasting a more normalized approach (which you associate to Kimball) with a less normalized approach (OBT). As Noah also pointed out, that's the complete opposite of what I'm finding in multiple other sources. I.e. Kimball is generally associated with a star schema approach - a denormalized model which accepts the cost of higher data redundancy because of the benefits of faster/simpler queries. To summarize, my other sources generally associate Kimball to denormalization, so can you explain why you associated him to the first, more normalized approach in this article?
I love your content and don't consider myself qualified to question you, but I am very confused by this article. It seems that you're contrasting a more normalized approach (which you associate to Kimball) with a less normalized approach (OBT). As Noah also pointed out, that's the complete opposite of what I'm finding in multiple other sources. I.e. Kimball is generally associated with a star schema approach - a denormalized model which accepts the cost of higher data redundancy because of the benefits of faster/simpler queries. To summarize, my other sources generally associate Kimball to denormalization, so can you explain why you associated him to the first, more normalized approach in this article?
Kimball is denormalized. OBT is more denormalized
Got it. Thanks for the quick reply!