Talk:Data redundancy

[untitled]
surely the cost is DECREASED disk space and not increased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.11.2 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department
"To prevent redundancy in Database Tables, database normalization should be done to prevent redundancy...". Ha ha ha. Good one. :)

--Craig (t|c) 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Flawed
"Data redundancy occurs in database systems which have a field that is repeated in two or more tables."

Deeply flawed statement.

1. Think UserID appearing in multiple tables.

2. Redundancy can (and does) occur within a single table.

--Damir Sudarevic (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Convert it to disambiguation please
My concerns here: User_talk:Zac67. Ushkin N (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (discussion moved here)

Hello! Can you please clarify what was meant in 1 this edit?

Here is how I'm seeing it: What else left? As you can see, this list is not small and "Data redundancy" was already covered by most of the articles.
 * Forward error correction covers error correction / Data redundancy as engineering action
 * Replication (computing) covers management tasks (where users protect/save data)
 * Denormalization covered separately from databases
 * Database normalization in databases has it's own topic

I suggest to convert Data redundancy to disabig because there so few statements and they are far better covered somewhere else IMO.

What do you think? Ushkin N (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit because a simple redirect doesn't begin to cover the issue. Actually, I've even considered expanding the page – it doesn't mention unwanted redundancy (compare data entropy), data compression and data deduplication and some other aspects. I'm not entirely against replacing it with a structured link list, but I'm not persuaded it'll work. --Zac67 (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)