Core benefit check: is “creating maximum data redundancy” an advantage of the database approach compared with file-based systems?

Introduction / Context:
A key promise of the database approach is to reduce unnecessary duplication of data while improving consistency. The statement suggests that maximizing redundancy is an advantage, which conflicts with normalization, integrity constraints, and single-source-of-truth design.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Normalization organizes data to minimize redundancy and anomalies.
• Integrity constraints and keys maintain consistency across shared datasets.
• Intentional redundancy may be used selectively for performance (for example, materialized views) but is controlled and justified.

Concept / Approach:
The database approach strives for appropriate redundancy—usually minimal—so updates occur in one place and propagate coherently. Excessive duplication increases storage, introduces update anomalies, and raises the likelihood of inconsistent reporting. Where redundancy is added (caching, indexes, aggregates), it is governed, derived, and reconciled with the base truth to avoid inconsistency.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Review schema evolution and data quality incidents; duplicates usually correlate with reconciliation issues and reporting mismatches, supporting the minimal redundancy principle.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Correct: Misrepresents database design aims.
• Backup/HA: Those use controlled redundancy at the infrastructure level, not logical data duplication as an “advantage.”
• Denormalization: It is situational and managed, not “maximum redundancy.”

Common Pitfalls:
Equating performance tuning with blanket duplication; ignoring master data management and reference data stewardship.

Final Answer:
Incorrect