I have a strong feeling that database design and normalisation often comes in second hand when dealing with spatial data.
With software costing a fortune and databases with over 100 fields tables I have to ask:
Is there good reasons for taking other considerations than normalisation when designing a spatial database?
I guess people will ask for examples, but that I can not give here, so my question is maybe more aimed for those who means that 100 fields is no problem and easier to maintain than a proper normalized design. What is the arguments?
Ok, I have got two answers pointing in the same direction as my own belief. But why is that often not followed? I will give some of my own thoughts that maybe someone can deny or verify.
Is it the software that forces people to work in a special way?
Or is it just that the software hides the database behind the desktop GIS?
One theory is that in education and organizations there is that the database part is kept away from GIS part. That there is different people running tools on geometries from the people knowing the database. Can that be the case?
Is it a lack in the education of GIS-professionals to get to understand the relational database concept?