Normalization is pretty independent of optimization strategy and generally that's not presented as one of its advantages. Normalizing data can improve write performance but will make reads slower, so if you have a write intensive database then you will see some performance gains.
There are performance benefits to normalization at scale. Take a look at the 2005 schema changes at Wikipedia [1] for a real-world example.
Normalizing data can improve write performance but will make reads slower, so if you have a write intensive database then you will see some performance gains.
In OLTP this might be true, based on access pattern. Normalization may improve both read and write performance. It could also make it worse if you take it too far. Domain Key normal form could kill you in unique indices alone.
In OLAP different levels of normalization actually helps both read and write performance. Take a look at the star schema to see how that works. In general dimensions as they relate to fact tables are normalized but dimensions themselves are denormalized.
Normalization is a tool like anything else. You can’t make absolute statements about it. The appropriate application will depend on your use case and may change over time.
Normalization is a tool like anything else. You can’t make absolute statements about it.
That's exactly my point. I specifically said that normalization is independent of optimizations, it might help, it might not. It was specifically in response to your absolute statement about normalization being critical to performance, and I quote:
Normalization is a performance optimization.
Emphasis taken directly from your quote.
Normalization has very little to do with optimization and it's one of the least cited reasons (if cited at all), for doing it.
Denormalization adds to the volume of data to read and write, and often reduces the global hit ratio of caches.
On most servers the most plentiful and cheap resource is the CPU (not the storage!), and an adequate level of normalization loads CPU while relieving storage.
Normalization often adds storage 'seeks', and therefore doesn't costs much on some storage (SSD...).
Comments
Normalization is pretty independent of optimization strategy and generally that's not presented as one of its advantages. Normalizing data can improve write performance but will make reads slower, so if you have a write intensive database then you will see some performance gains.
There are performance benefits to normalization at scale. Take a look at the 2005 schema changes at Wikipedia [1] for a real-world example.
In OLTP this might be true, based on access pattern. Normalization may improve both read and write performance. It could also make it worse if you take it too far. Domain Key normal form could kill you in unique indices alone.
In OLAP different levels of normalization actually helps both read and write performance. Take a look at the star schema to see how that works. In general dimensions as they relate to fact tables are normalized but dimensions themselves are denormalized.
Normalization is a tool like anything else. You can’t make absolute statements about it. The appropriate application will depend on your use case and may change over time.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
That's exactly my point. I specifically said that normalization is independent of optimizations, it might help, it might not. It was specifically in response to your absolute statement about normalization being critical to performance, and I quote:
Emphasis taken directly from your quote.
Normalization has very little to do with optimization and it's one of the least cited reasons (if cited at all), for doing it.
In data(bases) performance and normalization are intimately related.
Denormalization adds to the volume of data to read and write, and often reduces the global hit ratio of caches.
On most servers the most plentiful and cheap resource is the CPU (not the storage!), and an adequate level of normalization loads CPU while relieving storage.
Normalization often adds storage 'seeks', and therefore doesn't costs much on some storage (SSD...).