|
We are using two table to manage user data. A user table that has a username, email, password. Then a user profile that has first name, last name, bio, etc. Due to some other requirements it has been made clear it would be so much easier to combine the tables. What is the thinking generally with separating these tables and what should I be concerned about if we combine them? |
|||||||||||||
closed as too broad by BЈовић, GlenH7, MichaelT, Dan Pichelman, gnat Oct 10 '14 at 20:53There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
It's possible that the original design kept them separate because the original designer thought that the full user profile would not always be populated for each user. Their original goal might have been to separate a few mandatory fields from a large number of optional and sparsely used fields. They might have done this in an attempt to gain or improve performance of the system when querying the table. It's also possible that there is (or was, at some point) a 1:n relationship between users and user profiles. |
|||
|
|
|
As was noted in the comments, it sounds that under third normal form definitions, your proposed fusing of the tables is utterly correct. Fuse 'em. |
|||
|
|
