8 views

Uploaded by Chan-Hee Koh

MYSQL, SQL, etc

save

- normalisation_bcnf
- Schema Refinement and Normal Forms
- Less02 Installation
- Netact OSS
- chap4-2-stu
- Normal
- Normalization Notes
- Important DBMS Questions-II
- 10_Ch15
- 06 Normalization
- 14.Normalization
- CS319-course-ArmstrongCompleteSound
- Rolling Upgrade Apply Patch
- T.Y.B.sc. (Computer Science) - Paper - IV - DBMS - II & Software Engineering
- rdbs
- SQL Injection
- Using SQL Server Cursors
- Gbd - Sesion 06 Sentencia Create Table As
- Data communications and Network communications
- Covering Indexes: Orders-of-Magnitude Improvements
- DDS5 Design
- ORA-16191 Primary Log Shipping Client
- sap basis interview questions
- Xss Cheat Sheet 2016
- Planilha Para Simulação Do Pit
- PPT REFERAT (2)
- UNIDAD 1
- DiplomskiMarko (1).docx
- Registar Koncesija RS Cir
- 376133170-Pregunta-4.pdf
- S18101613260-rotated.pdf
- El Día Del Señor
- resumo-01.pdf
- Jsvssfnosfabsafb
- Wifi Enabled Smart Farm with Monitoring and Energy Theft Control System
- Sejarah Berdirinya UPN
- Teil 1 lektion 10.pdf
- Daftar Hadir
- Axonometrie
- documento.pdf
- Caso Westchester Pn
- ICE Student Chapter Paperwork
- Ficha-para-aprender-a-contar-animales-y-comidas-PDF.pdf
- new tech
- Acneiformis di induksi obat
- docslide.__leon-y-su-tercer-deseo-beatriz-rojas-55fb21ed06ee2.pdf
- Figuras Literarias
- 220462201-Curso-de-Liturgia-pdf.txt
- 349136939-Diseno-Urbano-III-Diagnostico-Huanuco.pdf
- contoh_format.ppt;filename_= UTF-8''contoh format.ppt
- Fabian Larrota Actividad 1 Informe
- leaflet tbc.docx
- A n a l i z a s w o t

You are on page 1of 64

th

Normal Form

Prof. Sin-Min Lee

Department of Computer Science

Functional Dependencies

o Dependencies for

this relation:

A ÷ B

A ÷ D

BC ÷ EF

o Do they all hold in

this instance of

the relation R?

R A B C D E F

a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1

a1 b1 c2 d1 e2 f3

a2 b1 c2 d3 e2 f3

a3 b2 c3 d4 e3 f2

a2 b1 c3 d3 e4 f4

a4 b1 c1 d5 e1 f1

• Functional dependencies are specified by the database

programmer based on the intended meaning of the

attributes.

Armstrong’s Axioms

• Armstrong’s Axioms: Let X, Y be sets of attributes from a

relation T.

[1] Inclusion rule: If Y _ X, then X ÷ Y.

[2] Transitivity rule: If X ÷ Y, and Y ÷ Z, then X ÷ Z.

[3] Augmentation rule: If X ÷ Y, then XZ ÷ YZ.

• Other derived rules:

[1] Union rule: If X ÷ Y and X ÷ Z, then X ÷ YZ

[2] Decomposition rule: If X ÷ YZ, then X ÷ Y and X ÷ Z

[3] Pseudotransitivity: If X ÷ Y and WY ÷ Z, then XW ÷ Z

[4] Accumulation rule: If X ÷ YZ and Z ÷ BW,

then X ÷ YZB

Closure

• Let F be a set of functional dependencies.

• We say F implies a functional dependency g if g can be

derived from the FDs in F using the axioms.

• The closure of F, written as F

+

, is the set of all FDs that

are implied by F.

• Example: Given FDs { A ÷ BC, C ÷ D, AD ÷ B },

what is the closure?

• The closure is a potentially exponential set:

Trivial dependencies: {A ÷A, B ÷B,…,ABC ÷ABC,…}, other

dependencies obtained by augmentation {AB ÷ABC, BC ÷BD,…},

dependencies obtained by other rules (or multiple rules), {A ÷ BC, C

÷ D, AD ÷ B, A ÷ D }

Closure

• Given a set F of functional dependencies. A

functional dependency X ÷ Y is said to be

entailed (implied) by F, if X ÷ Y is in F

+.

• To sets of functional dependencies F1, F2 are said

to be equivalent, if their closures are equivalent,

I.e. F1

+

= F2

+

.

Checking Entailment

• To find whether a functional dependency X ÷ Y

is implied by a set of functional dependencies F

– We can apply all the rules in Armstrong’s Axioms to

find whether we can obtain this dependency from the

dependencies in F

OR

– We can determine the closure of attributes X, denoted

by X

+

with respect to F, and check whether Y _ X

+

Closure of a set of attributes

• Given a set of F of functional dependencies, the

closure of a set of attributes X, denoted by X

+

is the

largest set of attributes Y such that X ÷ Y.

Algorithm Closure(X,F)

X[0] = X; I = 0;

repeat

I = I + 1;

X[I] = X[I-1];

FOR ALL Z ÷ W in F

IF Z _ X[I] THEN X[I] = X[I] W

END FOR

until X[I] = X[I-1];

RETURN X

+

= X[I]

Entailment

• Given F = { C ÷ DE, AB ÷ CE, EB ÷ CF, G

÷ A }

• Find: GB

+

– Initialize: GB

+

= {G,B}

– Use G ÷ A , add A, GB

+

= {A,B,G}

– Use AB ÷ CE, add C,E, GB

+

= {A, B, C, E, G}

– Use C ÷ DE, add D, GB

+

= {A, B, C, D, E, G}

– Use EB ÷ CF, add F, GB

+

= {A, B, C, D, E, F, G}

– Incidentally, GB is a superkey. Is it also a key?

Closure of a set of attributes

• Given a set of functional dependencies F for

a relation R, X is said to be a superkey, if

X

+

contains all the attributes in R.

– In other words, X implies all other attributes.

– Alternatively, if two tuples are the same with

respect to X then they should be the same with

respect to all other attributes.

Boyce-Codd Normal Form

• A table T is said to be in Boyce-Codd Normal Form

(BCNF) with respect to a given set of functional

dependencies F if for all functional dependencies of the

form X ÷ A entailed by F the following is true:

– If A is not a subset of X then X is a superkey, or

– If A is not contained in X then, X contains all the

attributes in a key.

• Given {AB ÷ C, AB ÷ D, AE ÷ D, C ÷ F} with Key:

{A,B,E}

– not in BCNF since C is a single attribute not in AB, but AB is not a

superkey.

Boyce-Codd Normal Form

Given head(T)={A,B,C,D,E,F} with functional dependencies

{AC ÷ D, AC ÷ E, AF ÷ B, AD ÷ F, BC ÷ A, ABC ÷ F } and

keys: {A, C}, {B, C}, is this relation T in BCNF?

No. It is sufficient to find one violation!

– AF ÷ B violates BCNF since B is not in AF and AF

is not a superkey.

– AD ÷ F violates BCNF since F is not in AD and AD

is not a superkey.

Note: ABC ÷ F does not violate BCNF since ABC is a

superkey.

Decomposition

• A decomposition of a relation R with functional

dependency set F is a sequence of pairs of the form

– (R1,F1), …, (Rn,Fn) such that

– The union of attributes in R1,…,Rn is equivalent to the attributes

in R

– All functional dependencies in F1,…,Fn are entailed by F.

• A decomposition is obtained by a simple projection of R

onto the attributes in the decomposed relations.

– For example, given R1 with schema R1(A1) , then

R1 = H

A1

(R)

Lossless Decompositions

• A decomposition of R to (R1, F1) and (R2,F2) is

said to be lossless, if we join R1 and R2 on the

common attributes, we are guaranteed to get R.

• In other words, given R1(A1) and R2(A2), we

need to make sure that it is always the case that

R=R1 join(A1·A2) R2

where join(A1·A2) means equi-join on the common

attributes in A1 and A2.

R A B C D

a1 b1 c1 d1

a1 b1 c2 d1

a2 b1 c2 d3

a3 b2 c3 d4

a4 b1 c1 d1

R1 A B

a1 b1

a2 b1

a3 b2

a4 b1

R2 B C D

b1 c1 d1

b1 c2 d1

b1 c2 d3

b2 c3 d4

R1 join R2 A B C D

a1 b1 c1 d1

a1 b1 c2 d1

a1 b1 c2 d3

a2 b1 c1 d1

a2 b1 c2 d1

a2 b1 c2 d3

a3 b2 c3 d4

a4 b1 c1 d1

a4 b1 c2 d1

a4 b1 c2 d3

{R1, R2} is not a

lossless decompostion

of relation R.

The join with respect to

R1.B=R2.B is not equal

to R.

Lossless Decomposition

Given a relation R with a set F of functional

dependencies, and a decomposition of to

(R1, F1) and (R2,F2) such that R1(A1) and

R2(A2) is said to be lossless iff either

A1·A2 ÷ A1 or A1·A2 ÷ A2

is entailed by F.

Lossless Decompositions

Let F={AB ÷ C, CD ÷ E, AB ÷ E, DE ÷ AF}

and

R1(A,B,C,D) F1={AB ÷C}

R2(C,D,E,F) F2={CD ÷E,DE ÷F}

is this lossless?

ABCD · CDEF = CD

is CD ÷CDEF entailed by F?

Dependency preservation

• A decomposition of relation (R,F) into (R1(A1),

F1) and (R2(A2), F2) is said to be dependency

preserving iff F1F2 is equivalent to F.

• To check whether F1F2 is equivalent to F, we

need to check

1. Whether all functional dependencies in F1F2 are

entailed by F, and

2. Whether all functional dependencies in F are entailed

by F1F2 .

Dependency preservation

• Given a decomposition R1(A1) of a relation R

with functional dependency set F, the only

dependencies that can be preserved in R1 are all

dependencies in F

+

of the form B ÷ C such that

BC _ A1.

Let F={AB ÷ C, CD ÷ E, AB ÷ E, DE ÷ AF}

Find all the functional dependencies that can be

preserved in:

R1(A,B,C,D)

R2(C,D,E,F)

Dependency preservation

• When a decomposition is lossy, then information

connecting tuples is lost. We get errorneous

information.

• When dependencies are lost in a decomposition,

they cannot be enforced as table constraints. They

have to be enforced as additional constraints.

• It is vital that decompositions are lossless. It is

important but not vital that decompositions are

dependency preserving.

Normal Forms

• If a relation is not in BNCF normal form, then it

can be decomposed by lossless decompositions

into smaller relations that are in BCNF.

• BCNF decomposition:

– Until all relations are in BCNF

• Find a dependency X ÷ Y in R(A) that violated BCNF

• Replace R, with R1(XY), and R2(A-Y)X

• This algorithm may cause many dependencies to

be lost.

3NF Conversion

• Given R(A,B,C,D,E,F) and

F= { ABC÷D, ABC÷E, BD÷E, E÷C, E÷F}

• Keys: ABC and ABE.

• Not in BNCF (violations: BD÷E, E÷C, E÷F),

• Not in 3NF (violations: E÷F).

• Convert to 3NF using the algorithm:

– First compact functional dependencies with common left side, to get

F= { ABC÷DE, BD÷E, E÷CF}

– Create relations R1(A,B,C,D,E), R2(B,D,E), R3(E,C,F)

– Since there exists relations that contain ABC, and ABE, we are done.

– Incidentally, all relations are also in BCNF.

Multivalued Dependencies

(MVDs)

• Let R be a relation schema and let o _ R

and | _ R. The multivalued dependency

o ÷÷ |

holds on R if in any legal relation r(R), for

all pairs for tuples t

1

and t

2

in r such that

t

1

[o] = t

2

[o], there exist tuples t

3

and t

4

in r

such that:

t

1

[o] = t

2

[o] = t

3

[o] = t

4

[o]

t

3

[|] = t

1

[|]

t

3

[R – |] = t

2

[R – |]

t

4

[|] = t

2

[|]

t

4

[R – |] = t

1

[R – |]

Motivation

• There are schemas that are in BCNF that do not

seem to be sufficiently normalized

name street

Stars

city title year

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln.

123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln.

123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln. C. Fisher

Hollywood

Malibu

Hollywood

Malibu

Hollywood

Malibu

Star Wars 1977

Star Wars 1977

Empire Strikes Back 1980

Empire Strikes Back 1980

Return of the Jedi 1983

Return of the Jedi 1983

Attribute Independence

• No reason to associate address with one movie

and not another

• When we repeat address and movie facts in all

combinations, there is obvious redundancy

• However, NO BCNF violation in Stars

relation

– There are no non-trivial FD’s at all, all five attributes

form the only superkey

– Why?

Multi-valued Dependency

Definition: Multivalued dependency (MVD):

A

1

A

2

…A

n

÷÷ B

1

B

2

…B

m

holds for relation R if:

For all tuples t, u in R

If t[A

1

A

2

...A

n

] = u[A

1

A

2

...A

n

], then there exists a v in R

such that:

(1) v[A

1

A

2

...A

n

] = t[A

1

A

2

...A

n

] = u[A

1

A

2

...A

n

]

(2) v[B

1

B

2

…B

m

] = t[B

1

B

2

…B

m

]

(3) v[C

1

C

2

…C

k

] = u[C

1

C

2

…C

k

], where C

1

C

2

…C

k

is all

attributes in R except (A

1

A

2

...A

n

B

1

B

2

…B

m

)

Example: name ÷÷ street city

name street

Stars

city title year

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

123 Maple Str.

123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln.

Hollywood

Hollywood

Malibu

Star Wars 1977

Empire Strikes Back 1980

Empire Strikes Back 1980

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

5 Locust Ln.

123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln. C. Fisher

Malibu

Hollywood

Malibu

Star Wars 1977

Return of the Jedi 1983

Return of the Jedi 1983

t

u

v

Example: name ÷÷ street city

name street

Stars

city title year

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln.

123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln.

Hollywood

Malibu

Hollywood

Malibu

Star Wars 1977

Star Wars 1977

Empire Strikes Back 1980

Empire Strikes Back 1980

C. Fisher 123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln. C. Fisher

Hollywood

Malibu

Return of the Jedi 1983

Return of the Jedi 1983

u

t

w

v

More on MVDs

• Intuitively, A

1

A

2

…A

n

÷÷ B

1

B

2

…B

m

says that the

relationship between A

1

A

2

…A

n

and B

1

B

2

…B

m

is independent

of the relationship between A

1

A

2

…A

n

and R -{B

1

B

2

…B

m

}

– MVD's uncover situations where independent facts related to a certain

object are being squished together in one relation

• Functional dependencies rule out certain tuples from being in

a relation

– How?

• Multivalued dependencies require that other tuples of a certain

form be present in the relation

– a.k.a. tuple-generating dependencies

Let’s Illustrate

• In Stars, we must repeat the movie (title, year) once for

each address (street, city) a movie star has

– Alternatively, we must repeat the address for each movie a star has

made

• Example: Stars with name

÷÷ street city

name street city title year

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

C. Fisher

123 Maple Str.

5 Locust Ln.

123 Maple Str.

Hollywood

Malibu

Hollywood

Star Wars 1977

Empire Strikes Back 1980

Return of the Jedi 1983

• Is an incomplete extent of Stars

– Infer the existence of a fourth tuple under the given MVD

Trivial MVDs

• Trivial MVD

A

1

A

2

…A

n

÷÷ B

1

B

2

…B

m

where

B

1

B

2

…B

m

is a subset of A

1

A

2

…A

n

or

(A

1

A

2

…A

n

B

1

B

2

…B

m

) contains all

attributes of R

Reasoning About MVDs

• FD-IS-AN-MVD Rule (Replication)

If A

1

A

2

…A

n

÷ B

1

B

2

…B

m

then

A

1

A

2

…A

n

÷÷ B

1

B

2

…B

m

holds

Reasoning About MVDs

• COMPLEMENTATION Rule

If A

1

A

2

…A

n

÷÷ B

1

B

2

…B

m

then A

1

A

2

…A

n

÷÷

C

1

C

2

…C

k

where C

1

C

2

…C

k

is all attributes in R except

(A

1

A

2

…A

n

B

1

B

2

…B

m

)

• AUGMENTATION Rule

If XY and W_Z then WX YZ

• TRANSITIVITY Rule

If XY and YZ then X (Z÷Y)

Coalescence Rule for MVD

X Y

-W:W Z

C

_

Then: X Z

If:

Remark: Y and W have to be disjoint and Z has to be a subset of or

equal to Y

Definition 4NF

• Given: relation R and set of MVD's for R

• Definition: R is in 4NF with respect to its

MVD's if for every non-trivial MVD

A

1

A

2

…A

n

÷÷B

1

B

2

…B

m

, A

1

A

2

…A

n

is a

superkey

• Note: Since every FD is also an MVD, 4NF

implies BCNF

• Example: Stars is not in 4NF

Decomposition Algorithm

(1) apply closure to the user-specified FD's and MVD's**:

(2) repeat until no more 4NF violations:

if R with AA ->> BB violates 4NF then:

(2a) decompose R into R1(AA,BB) and

R2(AA,CC), where CC is all

attributes in R except (AA BB)

(2b) assign FD's and MVD's to the new relations**

** MVD's: hard problem!

• No simple test analogous to computing the attribute closure for FD’s

exists for MVD’s. You are stuck to have to use the 5 inference rules

for MVD’s when computing the closure!

Exercise

• Decompose Stars into a set of relations

that are in 4NF.

• name÷÷street city is a 4NF

violation

• Apply decomposition:

R(name, street, city)

S(name, title, year)

• What about name÷÷street city in R

and name÷÷title year in S?

MVD (Cont.)

• Tabular representation of o ÷÷ |

X ->> Y is trivial if

(a) Y _ X or

(b) Y U X = R

Multivalued Dependencies

• There are database schemas in BCNF that do not

seem to be sufficiently normalized

• Consider a database

classes(course, teacher, book)

such that (c,t,b) e classes means that t is qualified

to teach c, and b is a required textbook for c

• The database is supposed to list for each course

the set of teachers any one of which can be the

course’s instructor, and the set of books, all of

which are required for the course (no matter who

teaches it).

• There are no non-trivial functional dependencies and

therefore the relation is in BCNF

• Insertion anomalies – i.e., if Sara is a new teacher that can

teach database, two tuples need to be inserted

(database, Sara, DB Concepts)

(database, Sara, Ullman)

course teacher book

database

database

database

database

database

database

operating systems

operating systems

operating systems

operating systems

Avi

Avi

Hank

Hank

Sudarshan

Sudarshan

Avi

Avi

Jim

Jim

DB Concepts

Ullman

DB Concepts

Ullman

DB Concepts

Ullman

OS Concepts

Shaw

OS Concepts

Shaw

classes

Multivalued Dependencies

• Therefore, it is better to decompose classes

into:

course teacher

database

database

database

operating systems

operating systems

Avi

Hank

Sudarshan

Avi

Jim

teaches

course book

database

database

operating systems

operating systems

DB Concepts

Ullman

OS Concepts

Shaw

text

We shall see that these two relations are in Fourth Normal

Form (4NF)

Multivalued Dependencies

Multivalued Dependencies

(MVDs)

• Let R be a relation schema and let o _ R

and | _ R. The multivalued dependency

o ÷÷ |

holds on R if in any legal relation r(R), for

all pairs for tuples t

1

and t

2

in r such that

t

1

[o] = t

2

[o], there exist tuples t

3

and t

4

in r

such that:

t

1

[o] = t

2

[o] = t

3

[o] = t

4

[o]

t

3

[|] = t

1

[|]

t

3

[R – |] = t

2

[R – |]

t

4

[|] = t

2

[|]

t

4

[R – |] = t

1

[R – |]

MVD (Cont.)

• Tabular representation of o ÷÷ |

4th Normal Form

No multi-valued dependencies

4th Normal Form

Note: 4th Normal Form violations occur

when a triple (or higher) concatenated key

represents a pair of double keys

4th Normal Form

4th Normal Form

Multuvalued dependencies

Instructor Book Class

Price Inro Comp MIS 2003

Parker Intro Comp MIS 2003

Kemp Data in Action MIS 4533

Kemp ORACLE Tricks MIS 4533

Warner Data in Action MIS 4533

Warner ORACLE Tricks MIS 4533

4th Normal Form

INSTR-BOOK-COURSE(InstrID, Book,

CourseID)

COURSE-BOOK(CourseID, Book)

COURSE-INSTR(CourseID, InstrID)

4NF

(No multivalued dependencies)

TABLE TABLE

TABLE

TABLE TABLE

TABLE

Independent repeating groups have been treated as a

complex relationship.

Example

• Let R be a relation schema with a set of attributes

that are partitioned into 3 nonempty subsets.

Y, Z, W

• We say that Y ÷÷ Z (Y multidetermines Z)

if and only if for all possible relations r(R)

< y

1

, z

1

, w

1

> e r and < y

2

, z

2

, w

2

> e r

then

< y

1

, z

1

, w

2

> e r and < y

2

, z

2

, w

1

> e r

• Note that since the behavior of Z and W are

identical it follows that Y ÷÷ Z if Y ÷÷ W

Theory of MVDs

• From the definition of multivalued dependency,

we can derive the following rule:

– If o ÷ |, then o ÷÷ |

That is, every functional dependency is also a

multivalued dependency

• The closure D

+

of D is the set of all functional and

multivalued dependencies logically implied by D.

– We can compute D

+

from D, using the formal

definitions of functional dependencies and multivalued

dependencies.

– We can manage with such reasoning for very simple

multivalued dependencies, which seem to be most

common in practice

– For complex dependencies, it is better to reason about

sets of dependencies using a system of inference

rules

Fourth Normal Form

• A relation schema R is in 4NF with respect

to a set D of functional and multivalued

dependencies if for all multivalued

dependencies in D

+

of the form o ÷÷ |,

where o _ R and | _ R, at least one of the

following hold:

– o ÷÷ | is trivial (i.e., | _ o or o | = R)

– o is a superkey for schema R

• If a relation is in 4NF it is in BCNF

Restriction of Multivalued

Dependencies

• The restriction of D to R

i

is the set D

i

consisting of

– All functional dependencies in D

+

that include

only attributes of R

i

– All multivalued dependencies of the form

o ÷÷ (| · R

i

)

where o _ R

i

and o ÷÷ | is in D

+

4NF Decomposition Algorithm

result: = {R};

done := false;

compute D

+

;

Let D

i

denote the restriction of D

+

to R

i

while (not done)

if (there is a schema R

i

in result that is not in 4NF) then

begin

let o ÷÷ | be a nontrivial multivalued dependency

that holds

on R

i

such that o ÷ R

i

is not in D

i

, and o·|=|;

result := (result - R

i

) (R

i

- |) (o, |);

end

else done:= true;

Note: each R

i

is in 4NF, and decomposition is lossless-join

Example

• R =(A, B, C, G, H, I)

F ={ A ÷÷ B

B ÷÷ HI

CG ÷÷ H }

• R is not in 4NF since A ÷÷ B and A is not a superkey for

R

• Decomposition

a) R

1

= (A, B) (R

1

is in 4NF)

b) R

2

= (A, C, G, H, I) (R

2

is not in 4NF)

c) R

3

= (C, G, H) (R

3

is in 4NF)

d) R

4

= (A, C, G, I) (R

4

is not in 4NF)

• Since A ÷÷ B and B ÷÷ HI, A ÷÷ HI, A ÷÷ I

e) R

5

= (A, I) (R

5

is in 4NF)

f)R

6

= (A, C, G) (R

6

is in 4NF)

- normalisation_bcnfUploaded byAbhinav Awasthi
- Schema Refinement and Normal FormsUploaded byYanto Guru Tik
- Less02 InstallationUploaded byzamanbd
- Netact OSSUploaded byvishalkavi18
- chap4-2-stuUploaded byStephen Ngo
- NormalUploaded byapi-3722484
- Normalization NotesUploaded byShenna Kim Casinillo
- Important DBMS Questions-IIUploaded bySunil Kamat
- 10_Ch15Uploaded byyatinshraddha1874
- 06 NormalizationUploaded byarushi05
- 14.NormalizationUploaded bySujata Dahal
- CS319-course-ArmstrongCompleteSoundUploaded bytamfin
- Rolling Upgrade Apply PatchUploaded bysaidi_m
- T.Y.B.sc. (Computer Science) - Paper - IV - DBMS - II & Software EngineeringUploaded byashishsingh2016
- rdbsUploaded byAshok Priyadarshan
- SQL InjectionUploaded byAnonymous OWsKj7t
- Using SQL Server CursorsUploaded byapi-3747861
- Gbd - Sesion 06 Sentencia Create Table AsUploaded byvcxzvzc
- Data communications and Network communicationsUploaded byJoshiAbhishek
- Covering Indexes: Orders-of-Magnitude ImprovementsUploaded byBest Tech Videos
- DDS5 DesignUploaded byTahseen Hassan
- ORA-16191 Primary Log Shipping ClientUploaded byMuhd Q
- sap basis interview questionsUploaded byanwardwh5895