Database normalization and application complexity: Needing to write more complex SQL (for example, additional joins) in database applications is generally considered a(n) ________ of normalization.

Introduction / Context:
Normalization organizes data into well-structured tables to reduce redundancy and avoid anomalies. A trade-off is that queries may require more joins and slightly more complex SQL to assemble related data. The question asks you to classify this increased SQL complexity within the pros and cons of normalization.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Normalized schemas (3NF or higher) spread attributes across multiple related tables.
• Applications must reconstruct business views using joins.
• We judge whether this need for more complex SQL is an advantage or disadvantage.

Concept / Approach:

Normalization reduces duplication and prevents modification anomalies, which is beneficial. However, to retrieve a full business record (e.g., order + customer + items + payments), applications often perform multiple joins. More joins and more tables can complicate query writing and optimization, especially for ad-hoc reporting or inexperienced users. Therefore, increased SQL complexity is typically seen as a disadvantage, even though it comes with strong correctness benefits elsewhere.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Compare a denormalized wide table (simpler SELECTs) with a normalized schema (JOINs). The normalized version often requires more code, though it gives better integrity.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Advantage: while normalization has advantages, query complexity itself is not one of them.

Either/neither: the mainstream interpretation is that added SQL complexity is a disadvantage.

Common Pitfalls:

Over-denormalizing to avoid joins, which reintroduces anomalies and update costs; better to use views or materialized views when needed.

Final Answer:

disadvantage