Question

1NF requires fields to be atomic; that is, it should represent only a single value.

He says because he doesn’t expect for the data to be searchable, or readable then it is not in violation of normal form and that the value represents a single object.

Is he right?

Answer 1

Define “atomic”.

The recentmost advances in theory reveal that the concept of “atomicity” on which the definition of 1NF (as typically understood) relies, is vague, and probably undefinable altogether.

For example, a coordinate on a map, is that an “atomic” value ? Usually, such a value has clearly visible ‘X’ and ‘Y’ components, and the value of those components can be “drawn out of” your “atomic” value. And if something can be “drawn out of” something else, then it is suspect to claim that that “something else” is “atomic” in the usual sense of the word (i.e. not further decomposable).

Is using a value of type “coordinate on a map” then in violation of 1NF, for precisely that reason ? That position is hard to maintain.

For such reasons, a single string holding a list of CSV’s, does not formally violate 1NF. That is not to say that actually designing your databases on this basis is a very good idea. Most of the time, it won’t be. But formally speaking, it does not violate 1NF (or whatever is left of it).