Talk:Data redundancy

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)Reply

"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)Reply

"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)Reply

My concerns here: User_talk:Zac67#covert_Data_redundancy_to_disambig. Ushkin N (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

(discussion moved here)

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

Here is how I'm seeing it:

• 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

What else left? As you can see, this list is not small and "Data redundancy" was already covered by most of the articles.

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)Reply

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)Reply