11 views

Uploaded by Vinayak Wadhwa

lossless join

save

- vp
- ai
- pseudosound
- CHAPTER 2
- Khanna's Check-List 2017
- Resume
- ftn02-01
- Ibm Java Programs
- CATALOG 2017 (Branch-wise)
- 2439x-2013
- Carrer Guidance System
- New Class
- UC2F1511SE
- LSMW Standard Batch-Direct Input Step-By-Step Manual
- bus2012_swec
- strategies-for-solving-multiplication-problems2
- My Resume
- Iterated Local Search for the Multiple Depot Vehicle Scheduling Problem
- c_asignment 14
- ilp application
- AUCP1 QUES2011
- Programming in .Net
- 047133345X_09.pdf
- Flappy Main.txt
- pseudowheel
- Balanced Tree (en)
- ilp application
- Brooky Strength Rev 1
- Lecture 8
- Lecture-Countif Sumif
- Use Case Hand Out
- banda2014.pdf
- Pcb Crypto
- zero knowledge
- SNORT Tool
- Ghassan Karame, Elli Androulaki-Bitcoin and Blockchain Security-Artech (2017)
- OWASP Backend Security Project Testing PostgreSQL - OWASP
- Crypto Tool
- Sample Process vs ISO9001 Clause Table.pdf
- Security Testing
- Wire Shark Tool
- Inception Presentation
- Decision support System
- DOM CSSOM
- Information security in big data
- Netwrok lab file
- Cybercriminals Use RansomWeb Attacks to Hold Website Databases Hostage
- What is New in Cloud Security
- WLAN security
- credit card hacks
- 13 Things government doesn't want you to know
- emerging challenges
- Google - Google Hack Honeypot Manual
- Sairam - how to fool people
- Security for BIG DATA
- Data security - cloud
- Cloud Security Risks
- Discovering Passwords in Memory
- HIndi test data

You are on page 1of 25

**• Eliminate redundancy by decomposing a relation
**

into several relations in a higher normal form.

• It is important to check that a decomposition

does not lead to bad design

• There are three desirable properties:

1. Lossless.

2. Dependency preservation.

3. Minimal redundancy.

Problem with Decomposition

• Given instances of the decomposed relations,

we may not be able to reconstruct the

corresponding instance of the original

relation – information loss

Example : Problem with Decomposition

Model Name Price Category

a11 100 Canon

s20 200 Nikon

a70 150 Canon

R

Model Name Category

a11 Canon

s20 Nikon

a70 Canon

Price Category

100 Canon

200 Nikon

150 Canon

R1 R2

Example : Problem with Decomposition

R1 U R2

Model Name Price Category

a11 100 Canon

a11 150 Canon

s20 200 Nikon

a70 100 Canon

a70 150 Canon

Model Name Price Category

a11 100 Canon

s20 200 Nikon

a70 150 Canon

R

Lossy decomposition

• In previous example, additional tuples are

obtained along with original tuples

• Although there are more tuples, this leads to

less information

• Due to the loss of information, decomposition

for previous example is called lossy

decomposition or lossy-join decomposition

Example of Relation Decomposition

Lossless Decomposition

A decomposition {R1, R2,…, Rn} of a relation R is

called a lossless decomposition for R if the

natural join of R1, R2,…, Rn produces exactly the

relation R.

• Definition:

– Let { R1, R2 } be a decomposition of R (R1 U

R2 = R); the decomposition is lossless if for

every legal instance r of R:

r = ΠR1(r) |X| ΠR2(r)

Lossless Decomposition

A decomposition is lossless if we can recover:

R(A, B, C)

Decompose

R1(A, B) R2(A, C)

Recover

R’(A, B, C)

Thus, R’ = R

Lossless Check Example 1:

• Consider five attributes: ABCDE

• Three relations: ABC, AD, BDE

• FD’s: A ->BD, B ->E

A B C D E

ABC a1 a2 a3 b14 b15

AD a1 b22 b23 a4 b25

BDE b21 a2 b33 a4 a5

Lossless Check Example

Lossless Check Example

Example 2:

R1 (A1, A2, A3, A5)

R2 (A1, A3, A4)

R3 (A4, A5)

FD1: A1 A3 A5

FD2: A5 A1 A4

FD3: A3 A4 A2

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

R1 a(1) a(2) a(3) b(1,4) a(5)

R2 a(1) b(2,2) a(3) a(4) b(2,5)

R3 b(3,1) b(3,2) b(3,3) a(4) a(5)

Example (con’t)

By FD1: A1 A3 A5

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

R1 a(1) a(2) a(3) b(1,4) a(5)

R2 a(1) b(2,2) a(3) a(4) b(2,5)

R3 b(3,1) b(3,2) b(3,3) a(4) a(5)

Example (con’t)

By FD1: A1 A3 A5

we have a new result table

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

R1 a(1) a(2) a(3) b(1,4) a(5)

R2 a(1) b(2,2) a(3) a(4) a(5)

R3 b(3,1) b(3,2) b(3,3) a(4) a(5)

Example (con’t)

By FD2: A5 A1 A4

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

R1 a(1) a(2) a(3) b(1,4) a(5)

R2 a(1) b(2,2) a(3) a(4) a(5)

R3 b(3,1) b(3,2) b(3,3) a(4) a(5)

Example (con’t)

By FD2: A5 A1 A4

we have a new result table

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

R1 a(1) a(2) a(3) a(4) a(5)

R2 a(1) b(2,2) a(3) a(4) a(5)

R3 a(1) b(3,2) b(3,3) a(4) a(5)

Example (con’t)

Why do we preserve the dependency?

• We would like to check easily that updates to

the database do not result in illegal relations

being created.

• It would be nice if our design allowed us to

check updates without having to compute

natural joins.

Dependency Preservation Decomposition

• Definition: Each FD specified in F either appears directly in

one of the relations in the decomposition, or be inferred from

FDs that appear in some relation.

Test of Dependency Preservation

• If a decomposition is not dependency-preserving, some

dependency is lost in the decomposition.

• One way to verify that a dependency is not lost is to take

joins of two or more relations in the decomposition to get

a relation that contains all of the attributes in the

dependency under consideration and then check that the

dependency holds on the result of the joins.

Test of Dependency Preservation II

• Find F - F', the functional dependencies not

checkable in one relation.

• See whether this set is obtainable from F' by

using Armstrong's Axioms.

• This should take a great deal less work, as we

have (usually) just a few functional

dependencies to work on.

Dependency Preserving Example

• Consider relation ABCD, with FD’s :

A ->B, B ->C, C ->D

• Decompose into two relations: ABC and CD.

• ABC supports the FD’s A->B, B->C.

• CD supports the FD C->D.

• All the original dependencies are preserved.

Non-Dependency Preserving Example

• Consider relation ABCD, with FD’s:

A ->B, B ->C, C->D

• Decompose into two relations: ACD and BC.

• ACD supports the FD B ->C and implied FD A ->C.

• BC supports the FD B->C.

• However, no relation supports A ->B.

So the dependency is not preserved.

Minimal Redundancy

• In order to achieve the lack of redundancy, we

do some decomposition which is represented

by several normal forms.

Conclusion

• Decompositions should always be lossless.

• Decompositions should be dependency

preserving whenever possible.

• We have to perform the normal decomposition

to make sure we get rid of the minimal

redundant information.

- vpUploaded byFaiqa mehboob
- aiUploaded byKhushbu Shrivastava
- pseudosoundUploaded byapi-437846864
- CHAPTER 2Uploaded bylee
- Khanna's Check-List 2017Uploaded byRajeevSangam
- ResumeUploaded byTamaraAtaAli
- ftn02-01Uploaded byAtta Muhammad
- Ibm Java ProgramsUploaded byPrabhakar Prabhu
- CATALOG 2017 (Branch-wise)Uploaded byRajeevSangam
- 2439x-2013Uploaded byPrajval Poojari
- Carrer Guidance SystemUploaded byakashdsky
- New ClassUploaded bybiskiti
- UC2F1511SEUploaded byAbdulla Razeef
- LSMW Standard Batch-Direct Input Step-By-Step ManualUploaded byVicente Arellano
- bus2012_swecUploaded bydouglas kangoni
- strategies-for-solving-multiplication-problems2Uploaded byapi-333680177
- My ResumeUploaded byGeorge DelMonte
- Iterated Local Search for the Multiple Depot Vehicle Scheduling ProblemUploaded bySávio Soares Dias
- c_asignment 14Uploaded byMubarak Ali
- ilp applicationUploaded byapi-239243343
- AUCP1 QUES2011Uploaded byDevi Ram
- Programming in .NetUploaded byKyaw Zin Thant
- 047133345X_09.pdfUploaded byRoberto Soch
- Flappy Main.txtUploaded byAjem Torjong
- pseudowheelUploaded byapi-437846864
- Balanced Tree (en)Uploaded byAnonymous OyF9Nz67C
- ilp applicationUploaded byapi-237615343
- Brooky Strength Rev 1Uploaded byNeoHooda
- Lecture 8Uploaded byav_meshram
- Lecture-Countif SumifUploaded byArya Bhatt

- Use Case Hand OutUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- banda2014.pdfUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Pcb CryptoUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- zero knowledgeUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- SNORT ToolUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Ghassan Karame, Elli Androulaki-Bitcoin and Blockchain Security-Artech (2017)Uploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- OWASP Backend Security Project Testing PostgreSQL - OWASPUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Crypto ToolUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Sample Process vs ISO9001 Clause Table.pdfUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Security TestingUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Wire Shark ToolUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Inception PresentationUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Decision support SystemUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- DOM CSSOMUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Information security in big dataUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Netwrok lab fileUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Cybercriminals Use RansomWeb Attacks to Hold Website Databases HostageUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- What is New in Cloud SecurityUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- WLAN securityUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- credit card hacksUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- 13 Things government doesn't want you to knowUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- emerging challengesUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Google - Google Hack Honeypot ManualUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Sairam - how to fool peopleUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Security for BIG DATAUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Data security - cloudUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Cloud Security RisksUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- Discovering Passwords in MemoryUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa
- HIndi test dataUploaded byVinayak Wadhwa