This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.2 Database System Concepts
**

Chapter 7: Relational Database Design Chapter 7: Relational Database Design

First Normal Form

Pitfalls in Relational Database Design

Functional Dependencies

Decomposition

Boyce-Codd Normal Form

Third Normal Form

Multivalued Dependencies and Fourth Normal Form

Overall Database Design Process

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.3 Database System Concepts

First Normal Form First Normal Form

Domain is atomic if its elements are considered to be indivisible units

Examples of non-atomic domains:

Set of names, composite attributes

Identification numbers like CS101 that can be broken up into parts

A relational schema R is in first normal formif the domains of all

attributes of R are atomic

Non-atomic values complicate storage and encourage redundant

(repeated) storage of data

E.g. Set of accounts stored with each customer, and set of owners stored

with each account

We assume all relations are in first normal form (revisit this in Chapter 9 on

Object Relational Databases)

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.4 Database System Concepts

First Normal Form (Contd.) First Normal Form (Contd.)

Atomicity is actually a property of how the elements of the domain are

used.

E.g. Strings would normally be considered indivisible

Suppose that students are given roll numbers which are strings of

the form CS0012 or EE1127

If the first two characters are extracted to find the department, the domain of

roll numbers is not atomic.

Doing so is a bad idea: leads to encoding of information in application

program rather than in the database.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.5 Database System Concepts

Pitfalls in Relational Database Design Pitfalls in Relational Database Design

Relational database design requires that we find a ³good´

collection of relation schemas. A bad design may lead to

Repetition of Information.

Inability to represent certain information.

Design Goals:

Avoid redundant data

Ensure that relationships among attributes are represented

Facilitate the checking of updates for violation of database

integrity constraints.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.6 Database System Concepts

Example Example

Consider the relation schema:

Lending-schema = (branch-name, branch-city, assets,

customer-name, loan-number, amount)

Redundancy:

Data for branch-name, branch-city, assets are repeated for each loan that a branch

makes

Wastes space

Complicates updating, introducing possibility of inconsistency of assets value

Null values

Cannot store information about a branch if no loans exist

Can use null values, but they are difficult to handle.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.7 Database System Concepts

Decomposition Decomposition

Decompose the relation schema Lending-schema into:

Branch-schema = (branch-name, branch-city,assets)

Loan-info-schema = (customer-name, loan-number,

branch-name, amount)

All attributes of an original schema (R) must appear in the

decomposition (R

1

, R

2

):

R = R

1

R

2

Lossless-join decomposition.

For all possible relations r on schema R

r =

R1

(r)

R2

(r)

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.8 Database System Concepts

Example of Non Lossless Example of Non Lossless--Join Decomposition Join Decomposition

Decomposition of R = (A, B)

R

2

= (A) R

2

= (B)

A B

E

E

F

1

2

1

A

E

F

B

1

2

r

A

(r)

B(r)

A

(r)

B

(r)

A B

E

E

F

F

1

2

1

2

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.9 Database System Concepts

Goal Goal ²²Devise a Theory for the Following Devise a Theory for the Following

Decide whether a particular relation R is in ³good´ form.

In the case that a relation R is not in ³good´ form, decompose it into a set

of relations {R

1

, R

2

, ..., R

n

} such that

each relation is in good form

the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition

Our theory is based on:

functional dependencies

multivalued dependencies

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.10 Database System Concepts

Functional Dependencies Functional Dependencies

Constraints on the set of legal relations.

Require that the value for a certain set of attributes determines uniquely

the value for another set of attributes.

A functional dependency is a generalization of the notion of a key.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.11 Database System Concepts

Functional Dependencies (Cont.) Functional Dependencies (Cont.)

Let R be a relation schema

e _ R and F _ R

The functional dependency

e ÷F

holds on R if and only if for any legal relations r(R), whenever any two

tuples t

1

and t

2

of r agree on the attributes e, they also agree on the

attributes F. That is,

t

1

[e] = t

2

[e] ÷ t

1

[F ] = t

2

[F ]

Example: Consider r(A,B) with the following instance of r.

On this instance, A ÷B does NOT hold, but B ÷A does hold.

1 4

1 5

3 7

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.12 Database System Concepts

Functional Dependencies (Cont.) Functional Dependencies (Cont.)

K is a superkey for relation schema R if and only if K ÷R

K is a candidate key for R if and only if

K ÷R, and

for no e · K, e ÷R

Functional dependencies allow us to express constraints that cannot be

expressed using superkeys. Consider the schema:

Loan-info-schema = (customer-name, loan-number,

branch-name, amount).

We expect this set of functional dependencies to hold:

loan-number ÷amount

loan-number ÷branch-name

but would not expect the following to hold:

loan-number ÷customer-name

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.13 Database System Concepts

Use of Functional Dependencies Use of Functional Dependencies

We use functional dependencies to:

test relations to see if they are legal under a given set of functional

dependencies.

If a relation r is legal under a set F of functional dependencies, we say that

r satisfies F.

specify constraints on the set of legal relations

We say that F holds on R if all legal relations on R satisfy the set of

functional dependencies F.

Note: A specific instance of a relation schema may satisfy a functional

dependency even if the functional dependency does not hold on all legal

instances. For example, a specific instance of Loan-schema may, by

chance, satisfy

loan-number ÷customer-name.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.14 Database System Concepts

Functional Dependencies (Cont.) Functional Dependencies (Cont.)

A functional dependency is trivial if it is satisfied by all instances of a

relation

E.g.

customer-name, loan-number ÷customer-name

customer-name ÷customer-name

In general, e ÷F is trivial if F _ e

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.15 Database System Concepts

Closure of a Set of Functional Dependencies Closure of a Set of Functional Dependencies

Given a set F set of functional dependencies, there are certain other

functional dependencies that are logically implied by F.

E.g. If A ÷B and B ÷C, then we can infer that A ÷C

The set of all functional dependencies logically implied by F is the closure

of F.

We denote the closure of F by F

+

.

We can find all of F

+

by applying Armstrong¶s Axioms:

if F _ e, then e ÷F (reflexivity)

if e ÷F, then K e ÷ K F (augmentation)

if e ÷F, and F ÷K, then e ÷ K (transitivity)

These rules are

sound (generate only functional dependencies that actually hold) and

complete (generate all functional dependencies that hold).

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.16 Database System Concepts

Example Example

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

F = { A ÷B

A ÷C

CG ÷H

CG ÷I

B ÷H}

some members of F

+

A ÷H

by transitivity from A ÷B and B ÷H

AG ÷I

by augmenting A ÷C with G, to get AG ÷CG

and then transitivity with CG ÷I

CG ÷HI

from CG ÷H and CG ÷I : ³union rule´ can be inferred from

± definition of functional dependencies, or

± Augmentation of CG ÷I to infer CG ÷CGI, augmentation of

CG ÷H to infer CGI ÷HI, and then transitivity

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.17 Database System Concepts

Procedure for Computing F Procedure for Computing F

+ +

To compute the closure of a set of functional dependencies F:

F

+

= F

repeat

for each functional dependency f in F

+

apply reflexivity and augmentation rules on f

add the resulting functional dependencies to F

+

for each pair of functional dependencies f

1

and f

2

in F

+

if f

1

and f

2

can be combined using transitivity

then add the resulting functional dependency to F

+

until F

+

does not change any further

NOTE: We will see an alternative procedure for this task later

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.18 Database System Concepts

Closure of Functional Dependencies (Cont.) Closure of Functional Dependencies (Cont.)

We can further simplify manual computation of F

+

by using the

following additional rules.

If e ÷F holds and e ÷K holds, then e ÷F K holds (union)

If e ÷F K holds, then e ÷F holds and e ÷K holds (decomposition)

If e ÷F holds and K F ÷o holds, then e K ÷o holds

(pseudotransitivity)

The above rules can be inferred from Armstrong¶s axioms.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.19 Database System Concepts

Closure of Attribute Sets Closure of Attribute Sets

Given a set of attributes e, define the closure of e under F (denoted by

e

+

) as the set of attributes that are functionally determined by e under F:

e ÷0 is in F

+

0 _ e

+

Algorithm to compute e

+

, the closure of e under F

result := e;

while (changes to result) do

for each 0 ÷K in F do

begin

if 0 _ result then result := result K

end

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.20 Database System Concepts

Example of Attribute Set Closure Example of Attribute Set Closure

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

F = {A ÷B

A ÷C

CG ÷H

CG ÷I

B ÷H}

(AG)

+

1. result = AG

2. result = ABCG (A ÷C and A ÷B)

3. result = ABCGH (CG ÷H and CG _ AGBC)

4. result = ABCGHI (CG ÷I and CG _ AGBCH)

Is AG a candidate key?

1. Is AG a super key?

1. Does AG ÷R?

2. Is any subset of AG a superkey?

1. Does A

+

÷R?

2. Does G

+

÷R?

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.21 Database System Concepts

Uses of Attribute Closure Uses of Attribute Closure

There are several uses of the attribute closure algorithm:

Testing for superkey:

To test if e is a superkey, we compute e

+,

and check if e

+

contains all

attributes of R.

Testing functional dependencies

To check if a functional dependency e ÷0 holds (or, in other words, is in

F

+

), just check if 0 _ e

+

.

That is, we compute e

+

by using attribute closure, and then check if it

contains 0.

Is a simple and cheap test, and very useful

Computing closure of F

For each K _ R, we find the closure K

+

, and for each S _ K

+

, we output a

functional dependency K ÷S.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.22 Database System Concepts

Canonical Cover Canonical Cover

Sets of functional dependencies may have redundant dependencies that

can be inferred from the others

Eg: A ÷C is redundant in: {A ÷B, B ÷C, A ÷C}

Parts of a functional dependency may be redundant

E.g. on RHS: {A ÷B, B ÷C, A ÷CD} can be simplified to

{A ÷B, B ÷C, A ÷D}

E.g. on LHS: {A ÷B, B ÷C, AC ÷D} can be simplified to

{A ÷B, B ÷C, A ÷D}

Intuitively, a canonical cover of F is a ³minimal´ set of functional

dependencies equivalent to F, with no redundant dependencies or having

redundant parts of dependencies

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.23 Database System Concepts

Extraneous Attributes Extraneous Attributes

Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional

dependency e ÷0 in F.

Attribute A is extraneous in e if A e

and F logically implies (F ± {e ÷0}) {(e ± A) ÷0}.

Attribute A is extraneous in 0 if A 0

and the set of functional dependencies

(F ± {e ÷0}) {e ÷(0 ± A)} logically implies F.

Note: implication in the opposite direction is trivial in each of the cases

above, since a ³stronger´ functional dependency always implies a

weaker one

Example: Given F = {A ÷C, AB ÷C }

B is extraneous in AB ÷C because A ÷C logically implies

AB ÷C.

Example: Given F = {A ÷C, AB ÷CD}

C is extraneous in AB ÷CD since A ÷C can be inferred even after

deleting C

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.24 Database System Concepts

Testing if an Attribute is Extraneous Testing if an Attribute is Extraneous

Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional

dependency e ÷0 in F.

To test if attribute A e is extraneous in e

1. compute (A ± {e})

+

using the dependencies in F

2. check that (A ± {e})

+

contains e; if it does, A is extraneous

To test if attribute A 0 is extraneous in 0

1. compute e

+

using only the dependencies in

F¶ = (F ± {e ÷0}) {e ÷(0 ± A)},

2. check that e

+

contains A; if it does, A is extraneous

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.25 Database System Concepts

Canonical Cover Canonical Cover

A canonical cover for F is a set of dependencies F

c

such that

F logically implies all dependencies in F

c,

and

F

c

logically implies all dependencies in F, and

No functional dependency in F

c

contains an extraneous attribute, and

Each left side of functional dependency in F

c

is unique.

To compute a canonical cover for F:

repeat

Use the union rule to replace any dependencies in F

e

1

÷0

1

and e

1

÷0

1

with e

1

÷0

1

0

2

Find a functional dependency e ÷0 with an

extraneous attribute either in e or in 0

If an extraneous attribute is found, delete it from e ÷0

until F does not change

Note: Union rule may become applicable after some extraneous attributes

have been deleted, so it has to be re-applied

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.26 Database System Concepts

Example of Computing a Canonical Cover Example of Computing a Canonical Cover

R = (A, B, C)

F = {A ÷BC

B ÷C

A ÷B

AB ÷C}

Combine A ÷BC and A ÷B into A ÷BC

Set is now {A ÷BC, B ÷C, AB ÷C}

A is extraneous in AB ÷C because B ÷C logically implies AB ÷

C.

Set is now {A ÷BC, B ÷C}

C is extraneous in A ÷BC since A ÷BC is logically implied by A ÷

B and B ÷C.

The canonical cover is:

A ÷B

B ÷C

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.27 Database System Concepts

Goals of Normalization Goals of Normalization

Decide whether a particular relation R is in ³good´ form.

In the case that a relation R is not in ³good´ form, decompose it into a set

of relations {R

1

, R

2

, ..., R

n

} such that

each relation is in good form

the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition

Our theory is based on:

functional dependencies

multivalued dependencies

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.28 Database System Concepts

Decomposition Decomposition

Decompose the relation schema Lending-schema into:

Branch-schema = (branch-name, branch-city,assets)

Loan-info-schema = (customer-name, loan-number,

branch-name, amount)

All attributes of an original schema (R) must appear in the decomposition

(R

1

, R

2

):

R = R

1

R

2

Lossless-join decomposition.

For all possible relations r on schema R

r =

R1

(r)

R2

(r)

A decomposition of R into R

1

and R

2

is lossless join if and only if at least

one of the following dependencies is in F

+

:

R

1

R

2

÷R

1

R

1

R

2

÷R

2

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.29 Database System Concepts

Example of Lossy Example of Lossy--Join Decomposition Join Decomposition

Lossy-join decompositions result in information loss.

Example: Decomposition of R = (A, B)

R

2

= (A) R

2

= (B)

A B

E

E

F

1

2

1

A

E

F

B

1

2

r

A

(r)

B(r)

A

(r)

B

(r)

A B

E

E

F

F

1

2

1

2

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.30 Database System Concepts

Normalization Using Functional Dependencies Normalization Using Functional Dependencies

When we decompose a relation schema R with a set of

functional dependencies F into R

1

, R

2

,.., R

n

we want

Lossless-join decomposition: Otherwise decomposition would result in

information loss.

No redundancy: The relations R

i

preferably should be in either Boyce-Codd

Normal Form or Third Normal Form.

Dependency preservation: Let F

i

be the set of dependencies F

+

that include only

attributes in R

i

.

Preferably the decomposition should be dependency preserving, that is,

(F

1

F

2

« F

n

)

+

= F

+

Otherwise, checking updates for violation of functional dependencies may

require computing joins, which is expensive.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.31 Database System Concepts

Example Example

R = (A, B, C)

F = {A ÷B, B ÷C)

R

1

= (A, B), R

2

= (B, C)

Lossless-join decomposition:

R

1

R

2

= {B} and B ÷BC

Dependency preserving

R

1

= (A, B), R

2

= (A, C)

Lossless-join decomposition:

R

1

R

2

= {A} and A ÷AB

Not dependency preserving

(cannot check B ÷C without computing R

1

R

2

)

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.32 Database System Concepts

Testing for Dependency Preservation Testing for Dependency Preservation

To check if a dependency e÷0 is preserved in a decomposition of R into

R

1

, R

2

, «, R

n

we apply the following simplified test (with attribute closure

done w.r.t. F)

result = e

while (changes to result) do

for each R

i

in the decomposition

t = (result R

i

)

+

R

i

result = result t

If result contains all attributes in 0, then the functional dependency

e ÷0 is preserved.

We apply the test on all dependencies in F to check if a decomposition is

dependency preserving

This procedure takes polynomial time, instead of the exponential time

required to compute F

+

and (F

1

F

2

« F

n

)

+

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.33 Database System Concepts

Boyce Boyce--Codd Normal Form Codd Normal Form

e ÷F is trivial (i.e., F _ e)

e is a superkey for R

A relation schema R is in BCNF with respect to a set F of functional

dependencies if for all functional dependencies in F

+

of the form

e ÷F, where e _ R and F _ R, at least one of the following holds:

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.34 Database System Concepts

Example Example

R = (A, B, C)

F = {A ÷B

B ÷C}

Key = {A}

R is not in BCNF

Decomposition R

1

= (A, B), R

2

= (B, C)

R

1

and R

2

in BCNF

Lossless-join decomposition

Dependency preserving

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.35 Database System Concepts

Testing for BCNF Testing for BCNF

To check if a non-trivial dependency e ÷F causes a violation of BCNF

1. compute e

+

(the attribute closure of e), and

2. verify that it includes all attributes of R, that is, it is a superkey of R.

Simplified test: To check if a relation schema R with a given set of functional

dependencies F is in BCNF, it suffices to check only the dependencies in the

given set F for violation of BCNF, rather than checking all dependencies in F

+

.

We can show that if none of the dependencies in F causes a violation of BCNF, then

none of the dependencies in F

+

will cause a violation of BCNF either.

However, using only F is incorrect when testing a relation in a decomposition of R

E.g. Consider R (A, B, C, D), with F = { A pB, B pC}

Decompose R into R

1

(A,B) and R

2

(A,C,D)

Neither of the dependencies in F contain only attributes from (A,C,D) so we might

be mislead into thinking R

2

satisfies BCNF.

In fact, dependency A ÷C in F

+

shows R

2

is not in BCNF.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.36 Database System Concepts

BCNF Decomposition Algorithm BCNF Decomposition Algorithm

result := {R};

done := false;

compute F

+

;

while (not done) do

if (there is a schema R

i

in result that is not in BCNF)

then begin

let e ÷F be a nontrivial functional

dependency that holds on R

i

such that e ÷R

i

is not in F

+

,

and e F = ;

result := (result ± R

i

) (R

i

± F) (e, F );

end

else done := true;

Note: each R

i

is in BCNF, and decomposition is lossless-join.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.37 Database System Concepts

Example of BCNF Decomposition Example of BCNF Decomposition

R = (branch-name, branch-city, assets,

customer-name, loan-number, amount)

F = {branch-name ÷assets branch-city

loan-number ÷amount branch-name}

Key = {loan-number, customer-name}

Decomposition

R

1

= (branch-name, branch-city, assets)

R

2

= (branch-name, customer-name, loan-number, amount)

R

3

= (branch-name, loan-number, amount)

R

4

= (customer-name, loan-number)

Final decomposition

R

1

, R

3

, R

4

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.38 Database System Concepts

Testing Decomposition for BCNF Testing Decomposition for BCNF

To check if a relation R

i

in a decomposition of R is in BCNF,

Either test R

i

for BCNF with respect to the restriction of F to R

i

(that is, all FDs

in F

+

that contain only attributes from R

i

)

or use the original set of dependencies F that hold on R, but with the following

test:

± for every set of attributes e _ R

i

, check that e

+

(the attribute closure of

e) either includes no attribute of R

i

- e, or includes all attributes of R

i

.

If the condition is violated by some e ÷F in F, the dependency

e ÷(e

+

- e ) R

i

can be shown to hold on R

i

, and R

i

violates BCNF.

We use above dependency to decompose R

i

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.39 Database System Concepts

BCNF and Dependency Preservation BCNF and Dependency Preservation

R = (J, K, L)

F = {JK ÷L

L ÷K}

Two candidate keys = JK and JL

R is not in BCNF

Any decomposition of R will fail to preserve

JK ÷L

It is not always possible to get a BCNF decomposition that is

dependency preserving

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.40 Database System Concepts

Third Normal Form: Motivation Third Normal Form: Motivation

There are some situations where

BCNF is not dependency preserving, and

efficient checking for FD violation on updates is important

Solution: define a weaker normal form, called Third Normal Form.

Allows some redundancy (with resultant problems; we will see examples later)

But FDs can be checked on individual relations without computing a join.

There is always a lossless-join, dependency-preserving decomposition into 3NF.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.41 Database System Concepts

Third Normal Form Third Normal Form

A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if for all:

e ÷F in F

+

at least one of the following holds:

e ÷F is trivial (i.e., F e)

e is a superkey for R

Each attribute A in F ± e is contained in a candidate key for R.

(NOTE: each attribute may be in a different candidate key)

If a relation is in BCNF it is in 3NF (since in BCNF one of the first two

conditions above must hold).

Third condition is a minimal relaxation of BCNF to ensure dependency

preservation (will see why later).

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.42 Database System Concepts

3NF (Cont.) 3NF (Cont.)

Example

R = (J, K, L)

F = {JK ÷L, L ÷K}

Two candidate keys: JK and JL

R is in 3NF

JK ÷L JK is a superkey

L ÷K K is contained in a candidate key

BCNF decomposition has (JL) and (LK)

Testing for JK ÷L requires a join

There is some redundancy in this schema

Equivalent to example in book:

Banker-schema = (branch-name, customer-name, banker-name)

banker-name ÷branch name

branch name customer-name ÷banker-name

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.43 Database System Concepts

Testing for 3NF Testing for 3NF

Optimization: Need to check only FDs in F, need not check all FDs in F

+

.

Use attribute closure to check, for each dependency e ÷0, if e is a

superkey.

If e is not a superkey, we have to verify if each attribute in 0 is contained

in a candidate key of R

this test is rather more expensive, since it involve finding candidate keys

testing for 3NF has been shown to be NP-hard

Interestingly, decomposition into third normal form (described shortly) can

be done in polynomial time

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.44 Database System Concepts

3NF Decomposition Algorithm 3NF Decomposition Algorithm

Let F

c

be a canonical cover for F;

i := 0;

for each functional dependency e ÷F in F

c

do

if none of the schemas R

j

, 1 e j e i contains e F

then begin

i := i + 1;

R

i

:= e F

end

if none of the schemas R

j

, 1 e j e i contains a candidate key for R

then begin

i := i + 1;

R

i

:= any candidate key for R;

end

return (R

1

, R

2

, ..., R

i

)

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.45 Database System Concepts

3NF Decomposition Algorithm (Cont.) 3NF Decomposition Algorithm (Cont.)

Above algorithm ensures:

each relation schema R

i

is in 3NF

decomposition is dependency preserving and lossless-join

Proof of correctness is at end of this file (click here)

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.46 Database System Concepts

Example Example

Relation schema:

Banker-info-schema = (branch-name, customer-name,

banker-name, office-number)

The functional dependencies for this relation schema are:

banker-name ÷branch-name office-number

customer-name branch-name ÷banker-name

The key is:

{customer-name, branch-name}

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.47 Database System Concepts

Applying 3NF to Applying 3NF to Banker Banker--info info--schema schema

The for loop in the algorithm causes us to include the following

schemas in our decomposition:

Banker-office-schema = (banker-name, branch-name,

office-number)

Banker-schema = (customer-name, branch-name,

banker-name)

Since Banker-schema contains a candidate key for

Banker-info-schema, we are done with the decomposition process.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.48 Database System Concepts

Comparison of BCNF and 3NF Comparison of BCNF and 3NF

It is always possible to decompose a relation into relations in 3NF and

the decomposition is lossless

the dependencies are preserved

It is always possible to decompose a relation into relations in BCNF and

the decomposition is lossless

it may not be possible to preserve dependencies.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.49 Database System Concepts

Comparison of BCNF and 3NF (Cont.) Comparison of BCNF and 3NF (Cont.)

J

j

1

j

2

j

3

null

L

l

1

l

1

l

1

l

2

K

k

1

k

1

k

1

k

2

A schema that is in 3NF but not in BCNF has the problems of

repetition of information (e.g., the relationship l

1

, k

1

)

need to use null values (e.g., to represent the relationship

l

2

, k

2

where there is no corresponding value for J).

Example of problems due to redundancy in 3NF

R = (J, K, L)

F = {JK ÷L, L ÷K}

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.50 Database System Concepts

Design Goals Design Goals

Goal for a relational database design is:

BCNF.

Lossless join.

Dependency preservation.

If we cannot achieve this, we accept one of

Lack of dependency preservation

Redundancy due to use of 3NF

Interestingly, SQL does not provide a direct way of specifying functional

dependencies other than superkeys.

Can specify FDs using assertions, but they are expensive to test

Even if we had a dependency preserving decomposition, using SQL we

would not be able to efficiently test a functional dependency whose left

hand side is not a key.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.51 Database System Concepts

Testing for FDs Across Relations Testing for FDs Across Relations

If decomposition is not dependency preserving, we can have an extra

materialized view for each dependency e ÷0 in F

c

that is not preserved

in the decomposition

The materialized view is defined as a projection on e 0 of the join of the

relations in the decomposition

Many newer database systems support materialized views and database

system maintains the view when the relations are updated.

No extra coding effort for programmer.

The FD becomes a candidate key on the materialized view.

Space overhead: for storing the materialized view

Time overhead: Need to keep materialized view up to date when

relations are updated

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.52 Database System Concepts

Multivalued Dependencies 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) 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).

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.53 Database System Concepts

Since there are non-trivial dependencies, (course, teacher, book) is the

only key, 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

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.54 Database System Concepts

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)

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.55 Database System Concepts

Multivalued Dependencies (MVDs) Multivalued Dependencies (MVDs)

Let R be a relation schema and let e _ R and 0 _ R. The

multivalued dependency

e ÷÷0

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

[e] = t

2

[e], there exist tuples t

3

and t

4

in r

such that:

t

1

[e] = t

2

[e] = t

3

[e] t

4

[e]

t

3

[0] = t

1

[0]

t

3

[R ± 0] = t

2

[R ± 0]

t

4

0] = t

2

[0]

t

4

[R ± 0] = t

1

[R ± 0]

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.56 Database System Concepts

MVD (Cont.) MVD (Cont.)

Tabular representation of e ÷÷0

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.57 Database System Concepts

Example 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

> r and < y

2

, z

2

, w

2

> r

then

< y

1

, z

1

, w

2

> r and < y

1

, z

2

, w

1

> r

Note that since the behavior of Z and Ware identical it follows that Y ÷÷

Z if Y ÷÷W

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.58 Database System Concepts

Example (Cont.) Example (Cont.)

In our example:

course ÷÷teacher

course ÷÷book

The above formal definition is supposed to formalize the notion

that given a particular value of Y (course) it has associated with

it a set of values of Z (teacher) and a set of values of W (book),

and these two sets are in some sense independent of each

other.

Note:

If Y ÷Z then Y ÷÷Z

Indeed we have (in above notation) Z

1

= Z

2

The claim follows.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.59 Database System Concepts

Use of Multivalued Dependencies Use of Multivalued Dependencies

We use multivalued dependencies in two ways:

1. To test relations to determine whether they are legal under a given set

of functional and multivalued dependencies

2. To specify constraints on the set of legal relations. We shall thus

concern ourselves only with relations that satisfy a given set of

functional and multivalued dependencies.

If a relation r fails to satisfy a given multivalued dependency, we

can construct a relations rd that does satisfy the multivalued

dependency by adding tuples to r.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.60 Database System Concepts

Theory of MVDs Theory of MVDs

From the definition of multivalued dependency, we can derive the

following rule:

If e ÷0, then e ÷÷0

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 (see Appendix C).

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.61 Database System Concepts

Fourth Normal Form 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 e ÷÷ 0, where e _ R and 0 _ R, at least one of the following hold:

e ÷÷ 0 is trivial (i.e., 0 _ e or e 0 = R)

e is a superkey for schema R

If a relation is in 4NF it is in BCNF

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.62 Database System Concepts

Restriction of Multivalued Dependencies 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

e ÷÷ (0 R

i

)

where e _ R

i

and e ÷÷ 0 is in D

+

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.63 Database System Concepts

4NF Decomposition Algorithm 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 e ÷÷0 be a nontrivial multivalued dependency that holds

on R

i

such that e ÷R

i

is not in D

i

, and e0=o;

result := (result - R

i

) (R

i

- 0) (e, 0);

end

else done:= true;

Note: each R

i

is in 4NF, and decomposition is lossless-join

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.64 Database System Concepts

Example 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)

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.65 Database System Concepts

Further Normal Forms Further Normal Forms

join dependencies generalize multivalued dependencies

lead to project-join normal form (PJNF) (also called fifth normal form)

A class of even more general constraints, leads to a normal form called

domain-key normal form.

Problem with these generalized constraints: i hard to reason with, and no

set of sound and complete set of inference rules.

Hence rarely used

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.66 Database System Concepts

Overall Database Design Process Overall Database Design Process

We have assumed schema R is given

R could have been generated when converting E-R diagram to a set of tables.

R could have been a single relation containing all attributes that are of interest

(called universal relation).

Normalization breaks R into smaller relations.

R could have been the result of some ad hoc design of relations, which we then

test/convert to normal form.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.67 Database System Concepts

ER Model and Normalization ER Model and Normalization

When an E-R diagram is carefully designed, identifying all entities correctly, the

tables generated from the E-R diagram should not need further normalization.

However, in a real (imperfect) design there can be FDs from non-key attributes

of an entity to other attributes of the entity

E.g. employee entity with attributes department-number and department-

address, and an FD department-number pdepartment-address

Good design would have made department an entity

FDs from non-key attributes of a relationship set possible, but rare --- most

relationships are binary

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.68 Database System Concepts

Universal Relation Approach Universal Relation Approach

Dangling tuples ± Tuples that ³disappear´ in computing a join.

Let r

1

(R

1

), r

2

(R

2

), «., r

n

(R

n

) be a set of relations

A tuple r of the relation r

i

is a dangling tuple if r is not in the relation:

Ri

(r

1

r

2

« r

n

)

The relation r

1

r

2

« r

n

is called a universal relation since it involves

all the attributes in the ³universe´ defined by

R

1

R

2

« R

n

If dangling tuples are allowed in the database, instead of decomposing a

universal relation, we may prefer to synthesize a collection of normal

form schemas from a given set of attributes.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.69 Database System Concepts

Universal Relation Approach Universal Relation Approach

Dangling tuples may occur in practical database applications.

They represent incomplete information

E.g. may want to break up information about loans into:

(branch-name, loan-number)

(loan-number, amount)

(loan-number, customer-name)

Universal relation would require null values, and have dangling tuples

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.70 Database System Concepts

Universal Relation Approach (Contd.) Universal Relation Approach (Contd.)

A particular decomposition defines a restricted form of incomplete

information that is acceptable in our database.

Above decomposition requires at least one of customer-name, branch-

name or amount in order to enter a loan number without using null values

Rules out storing of customer-name, amount without an appropriate loan-

number (since it is a key, it can't be null either!)

Universal relation requires unique attribute names unique role

assumption

e.g. customer-name, branch-name

Reuse of attribute names is natural in SQL since relation names can be

prefixed to disambiguate names

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.71 Database System Concepts

Denormalization for Performance Denormalization for Performance

May want to use non-normalized schema for performance

E.g. displaying customer-name along with account-number and balance

requires join of account with depositor

Alternative 1: Use denormalized relation containing attributes of account

as well as depositor with all above attributes

faster lookup

Extra space and extra execution time for updates

extra coding work for programmer and possibility of error in extra code

Alternative 2: use a materialized view defined as

account depositor

Benefits and drawbacks same as above, except no extra coding work for

programmer and avoids possible errors

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.72 Database System Concepts

Other Design Issues Other Design Issues

Some aspects of database design are not caught by normalization

Examples of bad database design, to be avoided:

Instead of earnings(company-id, year, amount), use

earnings-2000, earnings-2001, earnings-2002, etc., all on the schema

(company-id, earnings).

Above are in BCNF, but make querying across years difficult and needs

new table each year

company-year(company-id, earnings-2000, earnings-2001, earnings-2002)

Also in BCNF, but also makes querying across years difficult and

requires new attribute each year.

Is an example of a crosstab, where values for one attribute become

column names

Used in spreadsheets, and in data analysis tools

Proof of Correctness of 3NF Decomposition Proof of Correctness of 3NF Decomposition

Algorithm Algorithm

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.74 Database System Concepts

Correctness of 3NF Decomposition Algorithm Correctness of 3NF Decomposition Algorithm

3NF decomposition algorithm is dependency preserving (since there is a

relation for every FD in F

c

)

Decomposition is lossless join

A candidate key (C) is in one of the relations R

i

in decomposition

Closure of candidate key under F

c

must contain all attributes in R.

Follow the steps of attribute closure algorithm to show there is only one

tuple in the join result for each tuple in R

i

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.75 Database System Concepts

Correctness of 3NF Decomposition Algorithm Correctness of 3NF Decomposition Algorithm

(Contd.) (Contd.)

Claim: if a relation R

i

is in the decomposition generated by the

above algorithm, then R

i

satisfies 3NF.

Let R

i

be generated from the dependency e ÷0

Let K ÷0 be any non-trivial functional dependency on R

i

. (We need only

consider FDs whose right-hand side is a single attribute.)

Now, B can be in either 0 or e but not in both. Consider each case

separately.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.76 Database System Concepts

Correctness of 3NF Decomposition (Contd.) Correctness of 3NF Decomposition (Contd.)

Case 1: If B in 0:

If K is a superkey, the 2nd condition of 3NF is satisfied

Otherwise e must contain some attribute not in K

Since K ÷B is in F

+

it must be derivable from F

c

, by using attribute closure

on K.

Attribute closure not have used e ÷0 - if it had been used, e must be

contained in the attribute closure of K, which is not possible, since we

assumed K is not a superkey.

Now, using e÷ (0- {B}) and K ÷B, we can derive e ÷B

(since K _ e 0, and 0 Z K since K ÷B is non-trivial)

Then, B is extraneous in the right-hand side of e ÷0; which is not possible

since e ÷0 is in F

c

.

Thus, if B is in 0 then K must be a superkey, and the second condition of

3NF must be satisfied.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.77 Database System Concepts

Correctness of 3NF Decomposition (Contd.) Correctness of 3NF Decomposition (Contd.)

Case 2: B is in e.

Since e is a candidate key, the third alternative in the definition of 3NF is

trivially satisfied.

In fact, we cannot show that K is a superkey.

This shows exactly why the third alternative is present in the definition of

3NF.

Q.E.D.

End of Chapter End of Chapter

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.79 Database System Concepts

Sample Sample lending lending Relation Relation

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.80 Database System Concepts

Sample Relation Sample Relation rr

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.81 Database System Concepts

The The customer customer Relation Relation

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.82 Database System Concepts

The The loan loan Relation Relation

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.83 Database System Concepts

The The branch branch Relation Relation

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.84 Database System Concepts

The Relation The Relation branch branch--customer customer

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.85 Database System Concepts

The Relation The Relation customer customer--loan loan

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.86 Database System Concepts

The Relation The Relation branch branch--customer customer customer customer--loan loan

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.87 Database System Concepts

An Instance of An Instance of Banker Banker--schema schema

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.88 Database System Concepts

Tabular Representation of Tabular Representation of E pp F E pp F

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.89 Database System Concepts

Relation Relation bc bc: An Example of Reduncy in a BCNF Relation : An Example of Reduncy in a BCNF Relation

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.90 Database System Concepts

An Illegal An Illegal bc bc Relation Relation

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.91 Database System Concepts

Decomposition of Decomposition of loan loan--info info

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 7.92 Database System Concepts

Relation of Exercise 7.4 Relation of Exercise 7.4

**Chapter 7: Relational Database Design
**

First Normal Form Pitfalls in Relational Database Design Functional Dependencies Decomposition Boyce-Codd Normal Form Third Normal Form Multivalued Dependencies and Fourth Normal Form Overall Database Design Process

Database System Concepts

7.2

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

**First Normal Form
**

Domain is atomic if its elements are considered to be indivisible units Examples of non-atomic domains: Set of names, composite attributes Identification numbers like CS101 that can be broken up into parts A relational schema R is in first normal form if the domains of all

**attributes of R are atomic
**

Non-atomic values complicate storage and encourage redundant

**(repeated) storage of data
**

E.g. Set of accounts stored with each customer, and set of owners stored with each account We assume all relations are in first normal form (revisit this in Chapter 9 on Object Relational Databases)

Database System Concepts

7.3

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

4 ©Silberschatz. Strings would normally be considered indivisible Suppose that students are given roll numbers which are strings the form CS0012 or EE1127 of If the first two characters are extracted to find the department. Doing so is a bad idea: leads to encoding of information in application program rather than in the database. Korth and Sudarshan .g.First Normal Form (Contd. Database System Concepts 7. E.) Atomicity is actually a property of how the elements of the domain are used. the domain of roll numbers is not atomic.

A bad design may lead to Repetition of Information. Inability to represent certain information.Pitfalls in Relational Database Design Relational database design requires that we find a ³good´ collection of relation schemas.5 ©Silberschatz. Design Goals: Avoid redundant data Ensure that relationships among attributes are represented Facilitate the checking of updates for violation of database integrity constraints. Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .

branch-city.Example Consider the relation schema: Lending-schema = (branch-name. amount) Redundancy: Data for branch-name. introducing possibility of inconsistency of assets value Null values Cannot store information about a branch if no loans exist Can use null values. assets. but they are difficult to handle. loan-number. Korth and Sudarshan . branch-city. assets are repeated for each loan that a branch makes Wastes space Complicates updating.6 ©Silberschatz. customer-name. Database System Concepts 7.

branch-name. loan-number. amount) All attributes of an original schema (R) must appear in the decomposition (R1. For all possible relations r on schema R r = R1 (r) R2 (r) Database System Concepts 7. R2): R = R1 R2 Lossless-join decomposition.Decomposition Decompose the relation schema Lending-schema into: Branch-schema = (branch-name.7 ©Silberschatz.assets) Loan-info-schema = (customer-name. Korth and Sudarshan . branch-city.

8 ©Silberschatz. B) R2 = (A) A E E F R2 = (B) B 1 2 B(r) B 1 2 1 r A E F A(r) A (r) B (r) A E E F F B 1 2 1 2 Database System Concepts 7.Example of Non Lossless-Join Decomposition Lossless- Decomposition of R = (A. Korth and Sudarshan .

. Korth and Sudarshan . In the case that a relation R is not in ³good´ form. .Goal ² Devise a Theory for the Following Decide whether a particular relation R is in ³good´ form. decompose it into a set of relations {R1..9 ©Silberschatz. Rn} such that each relation is in good form the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition Our theory is based on: functional dependencies multivalued dependencies Database System Concepts 7. R2..

A functional dependency is a generalization of the notion of a key. Korth and Sudarshan . Require that the value for a certain set of attributes determines uniquely the value for another set of attributes.10 ©Silberschatz.Functional Dependencies Constraints on the set of legal relations. Database System Concepts 7.

Database System Concepts 7.B) with the following instance of r. t1[E] = t2 [E] t1[F ] = t2 [F ] Example: Consider r(A. Korth and Sudarshan .) Let R be a relation schema E R and F R The functional dependency EpF holds on R if and only if for any legal relations r(R).Functional Dependencies (Cont. whenever any two tuples t1 and t2 of r agree on the attributes E. A p B does NOT hold. they also agree on the attributes F.11 ©Silberschatz. That is. but B p A does hold. 1 1 3 4 5 7 On this instance.

amount). and for no E K.Functional Dependencies (Cont.) K is a superkey for relation schema R if and only if K p R K is a candidate key for R if and only if K p R. We expect this set of functional dependencies to hold: loan-number p amount loan-number p branch-name but would not expect the following to hold: loan-number p customer-name Database System Concepts 7. loan-number. E p R Functional dependencies allow us to express constraints that cannot be expressed using superkeys. branch-name.12 ©Silberschatz. Consider the schema: Loan-info-schema = (customer-name. Korth and Sudarshan .

we say that r satisfies F.Use of Functional Dependencies We use functional dependencies to: test relations to see if they are legal under a given set of functional dependencies. Database System Concepts 7. Note: A specific instance of a relation schema may satisfy a functional dependency even if the functional dependency does not hold on all legal instances. If a relation r is legal under a set F of functional dependencies. by chance. specify constraints on the set of legal relations We say that F holds on R if all legal relations on R satisfy the set of functional dependencies F. Korth and Sudarshan . For example. a specific instance of Loan-schema may.13 ©Silberschatz. satisfy loan-number p customer-name.

E p F is trivial if F E Database System Concepts 7.14 ©Silberschatz. loan-number p customer-name customer-name p customer-name In general. Korth and Sudarshan .g.Functional Dependencies (Cont.) A functional dependency is trivial if it is satisfied by all instances of a relation E. customer-name.

15 ©Silberschatz. If A p B and B p C. and F p K. then K E p K F These rules are sound (generate only functional dependencies that actually hold) and complete (generate all functional dependencies that hold). We can find all of F+ by applying Armstrong¶s Axioms: if F E. there are certain other functional dependencies that are logically implied by F. Korth and Sudarshan . then E p F if E p F.g. (reflexivity) (augmentation) if E p F. then E p K (transitivity) Database System Concepts 7. E. then we can infer that A p C The set of all functional dependencies logically implied by F is the closure of F.Closure of a Set of Functional Dependencies Given a set F set of functional dependencies. We denote the closure of F by F+ .

augmentation of CG p H to infer CGI p HI. I) F={ ApB ApC CG p H CG p I B p H} some members of F+ ApH by transitivity from A p B and B p H AG p I by augmenting A p C with G. Korth and Sudarshan .16 ©Silberschatz. C. or ± Augmentation of CG p I to infer CG p CGI. H. to get AG p CG and then transitivity with CG p I CG p HI from CG p H and CG p I : ³union rule´ can be inferred from ± definition of functional dependencies. G.Example R = (A. and then transitivity Database System Concepts 7. B.

Procedure for Computing F+ To compute the closure of a set of functional dependencies F: F+ = F repeat for each functional dependency f in F+ apply reflexivity and augmentation rules on f add the resulting functional dependencies to F+ for each pair of functional dependencies f1and f2 in F+ if f1 and f2 can be combined using transitivity then add the resulting functional dependency to F+ until F+ does not change any further NOTE: We will see an alternative procedure for this task later Database System Concepts 7.17 ©Silberschatz. Korth and Sudarshan .

then E p F holds and E p K holds (decomposition) If E p F holds and K F p H holds. If E p F holds and E p K holds. then E p F K holds (union) If E p F K holds. Korth and Sudarshan . Database System Concepts 7.Closure of Functional Dependencies (Cont.18 ©Silberschatz. then E K p H holds (pseudotransitivity) The above rules can be inferred from Armstrong¶s axioms.) We can further simplify manual computation of F+ by using the following additional rules.

Closure of Attribute Sets Given a set of attributes E define the closure of E under F (denoted by E+) as the set of attributes that are functionally determined by E under F: E p F is in F+ F E+ Algorithm to compute E+ . the closure of E under F result := E. while (changes to result) do for each F p K in F do begin if F result then result := result K end Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .19 ©Silberschatz.

Korth and Sudarshan .20 ©Silberschatz. H. result = ABCGH 4. result = ABCG 3. Database System Concepts 7. B. Does G+ p R? 1. Does A+ p R? 2. result = ABCGHI (A p C and A p B) (CG p H and CG AGBC) (CG p I and CG AGBCH) Is AG a candidate key? 1.Example of Attribute Set Closure R = (A. Is any subset of AG a superkey? 1. C. Is AG a super key? Does AG p R? 2. I) F = {A p B ApC CG p H CG p I B p H} (AG)+ 1. result = AG 2. G.

and for each S K+ . we compute E+.21 ©Silberschatz. we output a functional dependency K p S. and very useful Computing closure of F For each K R.Uses of Attribute Closure There are several uses of the attribute closure algorithm: Testing for superkey: To test if E is a superkey. That is. in other words. Is a simple and cheap test. Testing functional dependencies To check if a functional dependency E p F holds (or. Database System Concepts 7. and then check if it contains F. Korth and Sudarshan . we compute E+ by using attribute closure. we find the closure K+ . and check if E+ contains all attributes of R. just check if F E+ . is in F+ ).

Canonical Cover Sets of functional dependencies may have redundant dependencies that can be inferred from the others Eg: A p C is redundant in: {A p B. A p CD} can be simplified to {A p B. with no redundant dependencies or having redundant parts of dependencies Database System Concepts 7. A p D} E. B p C. AC p D} can be simplified to {A p B. on RHS: {A p B.g. B p C.g. B p C. A p C} Parts of a functional dependency may be redundant E. Korth and Sudarshan . A p D} Intuitively. on LHS: {A p B. B p C. B p C.22 ©Silberschatz. a canonical cover of F is a ³minimal´ set of functional dependencies equivalent to F.

Extraneous Attributes Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional dependency E p F in F. AB p CD} C is extraneous in AB p CD since A p C can be inferred even after deleting C Database System Concepts 7. Attribute A is extraneous in E if A E and F logically implies (F ± {E p F}) {(E ± A) p F}. Attribute A is extraneous in F if A F and the set of functional dependencies (F ± {E p F}) {E p(F ± A)} logically implies F. AB p C } B is extraneous in AB p C because A p C logically implies AB p C.23 ©Silberschatz. Note: implication in the opposite direction is trivial in each of the cases above. since a ³stronger´ functional dependency always implies a weaker one Example: Given F = {A p C. Example: Given F = {A p C. Korth and Sudarshan .

Testing if an Attribute is Extraneous Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional dependency E p F in F. if it does. Korth and Sudarshan . A is extraneous To test if attribute A F is extraneous in F 1. 2. if it does. A is extraneous compute E+ using only the dependencies in F¶ = (F ± {E p F}) {E p(F ± A)}. compute (A ± {E})+ using the dependencies in F check that (A ± {E})+ contains E. To test if attribute A E is extraneous in E 1.24 ©Silberschatz. Database System Concepts 7. check that E+ contains A. 2.

delete it from E p F until F does not change Note: Union rule may become applicable after some extraneous attributes have been deleted. so it has to be re-applied Database System Concepts 7. To compute a canonical cover for F: repeat Use the union rule to replace any dependencies in F E1 p F1 and E1 p F1 with E1 p F1 F2 Find a functional dependency E p F with an extraneous attribute either in E or in F If an extraneous attribute is found. and No functional dependency in Fc contains an extraneous attribute. and Fc logically implies all dependencies in F. Korth and Sudarshan .25 ©Silberschatz.Canonical Cover A canonical cover for F is a set of dependencies Fc such that F logically implies all dependencies in Fc. and Each left side of functional dependency in Fc is unique.

Korth and Sudarshan . B. The canonical cover is: ApB BpC Database System Concepts 7. B p C. B p C} C is extraneous in A p BC since A p BC is logically implied by A p B and B p C. Set is now {A p BC.26 ©Silberschatz.Example of Computing a Canonical Cover R = (A. AB p C} A is extraneous in AB p C because B p C logically implies AB p C. C) F = {A p BC BpC ApB AB p C} Combine A p BC and A p B into A p BC Set is now {A p BC.

decompose it into a set of relations {R1...27 ©Silberschatz.. . Rn} such that each relation is in good form the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition Our theory is based on: functional dependencies multivalued dependencies Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan . R2.Goals of Normalization Decide whether a particular relation R is in ³good´ form. In the case that a relation R is not in ³good´ form.

assets) Loan-info-schema = (customer-name. branch-city. R2): R = R1 R2 Lossless-join decomposition.28 ©Silberschatz. Korth and Sudarshan . amount) All attributes of an original schema (R) must appear in the decomposition (R1. branch-name. loan-number. For all possible relations r on schema R r = R1 (r) R2 (r) A decomposition of R into R1 and R2 is lossless join if and only if at least one of the following dependencies is in F+ : R1 R2 p R1 R1 R2 p R2 Database System Concepts 7.Decomposition Decompose the relation schema Lending-schema into: Branch-schema = (branch-name.

29 ©Silberschatz. Example: Decomposition of R = (A. B) R2 = (A) A E E F R2 = (B) B 1 2 B(r) B 1 2 1 r A E F A(r) A (r) B (r) A E E F F B 1 2 1 2 Database System Concepts 7.Example of Lossy-Join Decomposition Lossy Lossy-join decompositions result in information loss. Korth and Sudarshan .

Database System Concepts 7. Dependency preservation: Let Fi be the set of dependencies F+ that include only attributes in Ri. checking updates for violation of functional dependencies may require computing joins. R2. Rn we want Lossless-join decomposition: Otherwise decomposition would result in information loss.. Korth and Sudarshan . that is... No redundancy: The relations Ri preferably should be in either Boyce-Codd Normal Form or Third Normal Form.Normalization Using Functional Dependencies When we decompose a relation schema R with a set of functional dependencies F into R1. (F1 F2 « Fn)+ = F+ Otherwise. Preferably the decomposition should be dependency preserving.30 ©Silberschatz. which is expensive.

31 ©Silberschatz. C) Lossless-join decomposition: R1 R2 = {A} and A p AB Not dependency preserving (cannot check B p C without computing R1 R2) Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .Example R = (A. B p C) R1 = (A. C) Lossless-join decomposition: R1 R2 = {B} and B p BC Dependency preserving R1 = (A. B). B. C) F = {A p B. R2 = (B. R2 = (A. B).

t. then the functional dependency E p F is preserved.32 ©Silberschatz.r.Testing for Dependency Preservation To check if a dependency EpF is preserved in a decomposition of R into R1. F) result = E while (changes to result) do for each Ri in the decomposition t = (result Ri)+ Ri result = result t If result contains all attributes in F. Rn we apply the following simplified test (with attribute closure done w. Korth and Sudarshan . «. instead of the exponential time required to compute F+ and (F1 F2 « Fn)+ Database System Concepts 7. R2. We apply the test on all dependencies in F to check if a decomposition is dependency preserving This procedure takes polynomial time.

BoyceBoyce-Codd Normal Form A relation schema R is in BCNF with respect to a set F of functional dependencies if for all functional dependencies in F+ of the form Ep F.33 ©Silberschatz. F E) E is a superkey for R Database System Concepts 7. at least one of the following holds: E p F is trivial (i.e. where E R and F R.. Korth and Sudarshan .

B.Example R = (A. C) R1 and R2 in BCNF Lossless-join decomposition Dependency preserving Database System Concepts 7. R2 = (B. C) F = {A p B B p C} Key = {A} R is not in BCNF Decomposition R1 = (A. B). Korth and Sudarshan .34 ©Silberschatz.

Consider R (A. rather than checking all dependencies in F+ . D).C. Simplified test: To check if a relation schema R with a given set of functional dependencies F is in BCNF. using only F is incorrect when testing a relation in a decomposition of R E. Database System Concepts 7. that is. it suffices to check only the dependencies in the given set F for violation of BCNF.D) Neither of the dependencies in F contain only attributes from (A.B) and R2(A. verify that it includes all attributes of R. with F = { A pB. then none of the dependencies in F+ will cause a violation of BCNF either. C. B. However. Korth and Sudarshan .35 ©Silberschatz. dependency A p C in F+ shows R2 is not in BCNF. compute E+ (the attribute closure of E).g. In fact. it is a superkey of R. B pC} Decompose R into R1(A.D) so we might be mislead into thinking R2 satisfies BCNF. and 2.Testing for BCNF To check if a non-trivial dependency EpF causes a violation of BCNF 1. We can show that if none of the dependencies in F causes a violation of BCNF.C.

end else done := true.36 ©Silberschatz. result := (result ± Ri) (Ri ± F) (E. and E F = . Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan . compute F+ .BCNF Decomposition Algorithm result := {R}. while (not done) do if (there is a schema Ri in result that is not in BCNF) then begin let E p F be a nontrivial functional dependency that holds on Ri such that E p Ri is not in F+ . done := false. F ). and decomposition is lossless-join. Note: each Ri is in BCNF.

amount) R4 = (customer-name.Example of BCNF Decomposition R = (branch-name. amount) R3 = (branch-name. loan-number. customer-name. amount) F = {branch-name p assets branch-city loan-number p amount branch-name} Key = {loan-number. R3. Korth and Sudarshan . assets) R2 = (branch-name. R4 Database System Concepts 7. loan-number) Final decomposition R1. branch-city. branch-city. customer-name. customer-name} Decomposition R1 = (branch-name. loan-number. assets. loan-number.37 ©Silberschatz.

E) Ri can be shown to hold on Ri. Korth and Sudarshan .38 ©Silberschatz. check that E+ (the attribute closure of E) either includes no attribute of Ri.E. but with the following test: ± for every set of attributes E Ri. We use above dependency to decompose Ri Database System Concepts 7. all FDs in F+ that contain only attributes from Ri) or use the original set of dependencies F that hold on R. and Ri violates BCNF. or includes all attributes of Ri. the dependency Ep (E+ . Either test Ri for BCNF with respect to the restriction of F to Ri (that is. If the condition is violated by some Ep F in F.Testing Decomposition for BCNF To check if a relation Ri in a decomposition of R is in BCNF.

Korth and Sudarshan .BCNF and Dependency Preservation It is not always possible to get a BCNF decomposition that is dependency preserving R = (J.39 ©Silberschatz. L) F = {JK p L L p K} Two candidate keys = JK and JL R is not in BCNF Any decomposition of R will fail to preserve JK p L Database System Concepts 7. K.

Allows some redundancy (with resultant problems. dependency-preserving decomposition into 3NF. we will see examples later) But FDs can be checked on individual relations without computing a join. Korth and Sudarshan .40 ©Silberschatz. and efficient checking for FD violation on updates is important Solution: define a weaker normal form. called Third Normal Form.Third Normal Form: Motivation There are some situations where BCNF is not dependency preserving. Database System Concepts 7. There is always a lossless-join.

F E) E is a superkey for R Each attribute A in F ± E is contained in a candidate key for R. Korth and Sudarshan . Third condition is a minimal relaxation of BCNF to ensure dependency preservation (will see why later).. (NOTE: each attribute may be in a different candidate key) If a relation is in BCNF it is in 3NF (since in BCNF one of the first two conditions above must hold).41 ©Silberschatz. Database System Concepts 7.e.Third Normal Form A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if for all: E p F in F+ at least one of the following holds: E p F is trivial (i.

L p K} Two candidate keys: JK and JL R is in 3NF JK p L LpK JK is a superkey K is contained in a candidate key BCNF decomposition has (JL) and (LK) Testing for JK p L requires a join There is some redundancy in this schema Equivalent to example in book: Banker-schema = (branch-name.3NF (Cont. customer-name. L) F = {JK p L. Korth and Sudarshan .) Example R = (J.42 ©Silberschatz. banker-name) banker-name p branch name branch name customer-name p banker-name Database System Concepts 7. K.

decomposition into third normal form (described shortly) can be done in polynomial time Database System Concepts 7. need not check all FDs in F+ .43 ©Silberschatz.Testing for 3NF Optimization: Need to check only FDs in F. since it involve finding candidate keys testing for 3NF has been shown to be NP-hard Interestingly. Korth and Sudarshan . If E is not a superkey. we have to verify if each attribute in F is contained in a candidate key of R this test is rather more expensive. if E is a superkey. for each dependency E p F. Use attribute closure to check.

. Korth and Sudarshan . for each functional dependency E p F in Fc do if none of the schemas Rj. 1 e j e i contains a candidate key for R then begin i := i + 1. 1 e j e i contains E F then begin i := i + 1.3NF Decomposition Algorithm Let Fc be a canonical cover for F. Ri) Database System Concepts 7.44 ©Silberschatz. i := 0.. R2.. Ri := any candidate key for R.. end return (R1. Ri := E F end if none of the schemas Rj.

45 ©Silberschatz. Korth and Sudarshan .) Above algorithm ensures: each relation schema Ri is in 3NF decomposition is dependency preserving and lossless-join Proof of correctness is at end of this file (click here) Database System Concepts 7.3NF Decomposition Algorithm (Cont.

Example

Relation schema: Banker-info-schema = (branch-name, customer-name, banker-name, office-number) The functional dependencies for this relation schema are:

**banker-name p branch-name office-number customer-name branch-name p banker-name
**

The key is:

{customer-name, branch-name}

Database System Concepts

7.46

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Applying 3NF to Banker-info-schema Banker-info The for loop in the algorithm causes us to include the following

schemas in our decomposition: Banker-office-schema = (banker-name, branch-name, office-number) Banker-schema = (customer-name, branch-name, banker-name)

Since Banker-schema contains a candidate key for

Banker-info-schema, we are done with the decomposition process.

Database System Concepts

7.47

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

**Comparison of BCNF and 3NF
**

It is always possible to decompose a relation into relations in 3NF and the decomposition is lossless the dependencies are preserved It is always possible to decompose a relation into relations in BCNF and the decomposition is lossless it may not be possible to preserve dependencies.

Database System Concepts

7.48

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

the relationship l1. k1) need to use null values (e. to represent the relationship l2. K.Comparison of BCNF and 3NF (Cont.g..g. L) F = {JK p L.49 ©Silberschatz.) Example of problems due to redundancy in 3NF R = (J. L p K} J j1 j2 j3 null L l1 l1 l1 l2 K k1 k1 k1 k2 A schema that is in 3NF but not in BCNF has the problems of repetition of information (e. Korth and Sudarshan . k2 where there is no corresponding value for J). Database System Concepts 7..

we accept one of Lack of dependency preservation Redundancy due to use of 3NF Interestingly. using SQL we would not be able to efficiently test a functional dependency whose left hand side is not a key. but they are expensive to test Even if we had a dependency preserving decomposition. Lossless join. SQL does not provide a direct way of specifying functional dependencies other than superkeys. Can specify FDs using assertions. If we cannot achieve this. Database System Concepts 7.50 ©Silberschatz. Dependency preservation.Design Goals Goal for a relational database design is: BCNF. Korth and Sudarshan .

Testing for FDs Across Relations If decomposition is not dependency preserving. Korth and Sudarshan .51 ©Silberschatz. No extra coding effort for programmer. Space overhead: for storing the materialized view Time overhead: Need to keep materialized view up to date when relations are updated Database System Concepts 7. The FD becomes a candidate key on the materialized view. we can have an extra materialized view for each dependency E pF in Fc that is not preserved in the decomposition The materialized view is defined as a projection on E F of the join of the relations in the decomposition Many newer database systems support materialized views and database system maintains the view when the relations are updated.

Multivalued Dependencies There are database schemas in BCNF that do not seem to be sufficiently normalized Consider a database classes(course. book) such that (c. Database System Concepts 7.t. teacher.b) classes means that t is qualified to teach c. all of which are required for the course (no matter who teaches it). 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.52 ©Silberschatz. and the set of books. Korth and Sudarshan .

two tuples need to be inserted (database. Sara. if Sara is a new teacher that can teach database.. Korth and Sudarshan . Sara. DB Concepts) (database. teacher. and therefore the relation is in BCNF Insertion anomalies ± i.53 ©Silberschatz. (course.e. Ullman) Database System Concepts 7.course database database database database database database operating systems operating systems operating systems operating systems teacher Avi Avi Hank Hank Sudarshan Sudarshan Avi Avi Jim Jim classes book DB Concepts Ullman DB Concepts Ullman DB Concepts Ullman OS Concepts Shaw OS Concepts Shaw Since there are non-trivial dependencies. book) is the only key.

it is better to decompose classes into: course database database database operating systems operating systems course database database operating systems operating systems text teacher Avi Hank Sudarshan Avi Jim teaches book DB Concepts Ullman OS Concepts Shaw We shall see that these two relations are in Fourth Normal Form (4NF) Database System Concepts 7. Therefore. Korth and Sudarshan .54 ©Silberschatz.

The multivalued dependency E pp F holds on R if in any legal relation r(R).55 ©Silberschatz. for all pairs for tuples t1 and t2 in r such that t1[E] = t2 [E].Multivalued Dependencies (MVDs) Let R be a relation schema and let E R and F R. there exist tuples t3 and t4 in r such that: t1[E] = t2 [E] = t3 [E] t4 [E] t3[F] = t1 [F] t3[R ± F] = t2[R ± F] t4 F] = t2[F] t4[R ± F] = t1[R ± F] Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .

) Tabular representation of E pp F Database System Concepts 7.56 ©Silberschatz. Korth and Sudarshan .MVD (Cont.

z2. Korth and Sudarshan . w2 > r then < y1. z2.Example Let R be a relation schema with a set of attributes that are partitioned into 3 nonempty subsets. w1 > r and < y2. w1 > r Note that since the behavior of Z and W are identical it follows that Y pp Z if Y pp W Database System Concepts 7. Y. z1. W We say that Y pp Z (Y multidetermines Z) if and only if for all possible relations r(R) < y1. w2 > r and < y1. z1. Z.57 ©Silberschatz.

Note: If Y p Z then Y pp Z Indeed we have (in above notation) Z1 = Z2 The claim follows. and these two sets are in some sense independent of each other. Korth and Sudarshan .Example (Cont. Database System Concepts 7.) In our example: course pp teacher course pp book The above formal definition is supposed to formalize the notion that given a particular value of Y (course) it has associated with it a set of values of Z (teacher) and a set of values of W (book).58 ©Silberschatz.

We shall thus concern ourselves only with relations that satisfy a given set of functional and multivalued dependencies.Use of Multivalued Dependencies We use multivalued dependencies in two ways: 1. Korth and Sudarshan . To specify constraints on the set of legal relations. we can construct a relations rd that does satisfy the multivalued dependency by adding tuples to r. To test relations to determine whether they are legal under a given set of functional and multivalued dependencies 2. Database System Concepts 7.59 ©Silberschatz. If a relation r fails to satisfy a given multivalued dependency.

Theory of MVDs From the definition of multivalued dependency. then E pp F 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. Korth and Sudarshan . using the formal definitions of functional dependencies and multivalued dependencies. we can derive the following rule: If E p F. Database System Concepts 7. it is better to reason about sets of dependencies using a system of inference rules (see Appendix C). We can manage with such reasoning for very simple multivalued dependencies. which seem to be most common in practice For complex dependencies.60 ©Silberschatz.

. F E or E F = R) E is a superkey for schema R If a relation is in 4NF it is in BCNF Database System Concepts 7. at least one of the following hold: E pp F is trivial (i. Korth and Sudarshan .61 ©Silberschatz. where E R and F R.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 E pp F.e.

Korth and Sudarshan .62 ©Silberschatz.Restriction of Multivalued Dependencies The restriction of D to Ri is the set Di consisting of All functional dependencies in D+ that include only attributes of Ri All multivalued dependencies of the form E pp (F Ri) where E Ri and E pp F is in D+ Database System Concepts 7.

4NF Decomposition Algorithm result: = {R}. result := (result . and decomposition is lossless-join Database System Concepts 7. done := false. compute D+ . and EF!J. end else done:= true.Ri) (Ri . Korth and Sudarshan .F) (E. F).63 ©Silberschatz. Let Di denote the restriction of D+ to Ri while (not done) if (there is a schema Ri in result that is not in 4NF) then begin let E pp F be a nontrivial multivalued dependency that holds on Ri such that E p Ri is not in Di. Note: each Ri is in 4NF.

C. Korth and Sudarshan .Example R =(A. I) e) R5 = (A. C. H) d) R4 = (A. I) f)R6 = (A. B.64 ©Silberschatz. H. G. A pp HI. A pp I Database System Concepts 7. G. H. G) (R1 is in 4NF) (R2 is not in 4NF) (R3 is in 4NF) (R4 is not in 4NF) (R5 is in 4NF) (R6 is in 4NF) Since A pp B and B pp HI. I) c) R3 = (C. C. C. G. G. I) F ={ A pp B B pp HI CG pp H } R is not in 4NF since A pp B and A is not a superkey for R Decomposition a) R1 = (A. B) b) R2 = (A.

Korth and Sudarshan .65 ©Silberschatz. Hence rarely used Database System Concepts 7. Problem with these generalized constraints: i hard to reason with. and no set of sound and complete set of inference rules. leads to a normal form called domain-key normal form.Further Normal Forms join dependencies generalize multivalued dependencies lead to project-join normal form (PJNF) (also called fifth normal form) A class of even more general constraints.

R could have been the result of some ad hoc design of relations.66 ©Silberschatz. Database System Concepts 7. R could have been a single relation containing all attributes that are of interest (called universal relation). Normalization breaks R into smaller relations.Overall Database Design Process We have assumed schema R is given R could have been generated when converting E-R diagram to a set of tables. which we then test/convert to normal form. Korth and Sudarshan .

identifying all entities correctly. the tables generated from the E-R diagram should not need further normalization.most relationships are binary Database System Concepts 7. but rare --.67 ©Silberschatz. and an FD department-number p department-address Good design would have made department an entity FDs from non-key attributes of a relationship set possible. Korth and Sudarshan .g.ER Model and Normalization When an E-R diagram is carefully designed. employee entity with attributes department-number and department- address. However. in a real (imperfect) design there can be FDs from non-key attributes of an entity to other attributes of the entity E.

Korth and Sudarshan ..Universal Relation Approach Dangling tuples ± Tuples that ³disappear´ in computing a join. Database System Concepts 7. «. instead of decomposing a universal relation. we may prefer to synthesize a collection of normal form schemas from a given set of attributes. rn (Rn) be a set of relations A tuple r of the relation ri is a dangling tuple if r is not in the relation: Ri (r1 r2 « rn) The relation r1 r2 « rn is called a universal relation since it involves all the attributes in the ³universe´ defined by R1 R2 « Rn If dangling tuples are allowed in the database.68 ©Silberschatz. r2 (R2). Let r1 (R1).

may want to break up information about loans into: (branch-name.Universal Relation Approach Dangling tuples may occur in practical database applications. customer-name) Universal relation would require null values. amount) (loan-number. Korth and Sudarshan . and have dangling tuples Database System Concepts 7.69 ©Silberschatz. They represent incomplete information E. loan-number) (loan-number.g.

it can't be null either!) Universal relation requires unique attribute names unique role assumption e.70 ©Silberschatz. branch-name Reuse of attribute names is natural in SQL since relation names can be prefixed to disambiguate names Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .) A particular decomposition defines a restricted form of incomplete information that is acceptable in our database.g. customer-name.Universal Relation Approach (Contd. Above decomposition requires at least one of customer-name. amount without an appropriate loannumber (since it is a key. branchname or amount in order to enter a loan number without using null values Rules out storing of customer-name.

**Denormalization for Performance
**

May want to use non-normalized schema for performance E.g. displaying customer-name along with account-number and balance

**requires join of account with depositor
**

Alternative 1: Use denormalized relation containing attributes of account

**as well as depositor with all above attributes
**

faster lookup Extra space and extra execution time for updates extra coding work for programmer and possibility of error in extra code Alternative 2: use a materialized view defined as

account

depositor

Benefits and drawbacks same as above, except no extra coding work for programmer and avoids possible errors

Database System Concepts

7.71

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

**Other Design Issues
**

Some aspects of database design are not caught by normalization Examples of bad database design, to be avoided:

**Instead of earnings(company-id, year, amount), use
**

earnings-2000, earnings-2001, earnings-2002, etc., all on the schema (company-id, earnings). Above are in BCNF, but make querying across years difficult and needs new table each year company-year(company-id, earnings-2000, earnings-2001, earnings-2002) Also in BCNF, but also makes querying across years difficult and requires new attribute each year. Is an example of a crosstab, where values for one attribute become column names Used in spreadsheets, and in data analysis tools

Database System Concepts

7.72

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Proof of Correctness of 3NF Decomposition Algorithm

Follow the steps of attribute closure algorithm to show there is only one tuple in the join result for each tuple in Ri Database System Concepts 7.Correctness of 3NF Decomposition Algorithm 3NF decomposition algorithm is dependency preserving (since there is a relation for every FD in Fc) Decomposition is lossless join A candidate key (C) is in one of the relations Ri in decomposition Closure of candidate key under Fc must contain all attributes in R.74 ©Silberschatz. Korth and Sudarshan .

(We need only consider FDs whose right-hand side is a single attribute.) Now. B can be in either F or E but not in both. Let Ri be generated from the dependency E pF Let K pF be any non-trivial functional dependency on Ri. Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan . then Ri satisfies 3NF.75 ©Silberschatz.) Claim: if a relation Ri is in the decomposition generated by the above algorithm. Consider each case separately.Correctness of 3NF Decomposition Algorithm (Contd.

if it had been used. and F K since K p B is non-trivial) Then. Korth and Sudarshan . and the second condition of 3NF must be satisfied. the 2nd condition of 3NF is satisfied Otherwise E must contain some attribute not in K Since K p B is in F+ it must be derivable from Fc.Correctness of 3NF Decomposition (Contd. which is not possible since E pF is in Fc. by using attribute closure on K. since we assumed K is not a superkey.) Case 1: If B in F: If K is a superkey. Now. which is not possible. using Ep (F.{B}) and K p B. Thus. Attribute closure not have used E pF . Database System Concepts 7. B is extraneous in the right-hand side of E pF.76 ©Silberschatz. if B is in F then K must be a superkey. we can derive E pB (since K E F. E must be contained in the attribute closure of K.

Korth and Sudarshan . the third alternative in the definition of 3NF is trivially satisfied. This shows exactly why the third alternative is present in the definition of 3NF.D. Since E is a candidate key. Q. we cannot show that K is a superkey.) Case 2: B is in E.E.Correctness of 3NF Decomposition (Contd. In fact. Database System Concepts 7.77 ©Silberschatz.

End of Chapter .

Korth and Sudarshan .Sample lending Relation Database System Concepts 7.79 ©Silberschatz.

Korth and Sudarshan .Sample Relation r Database System Concepts 7.80 ©Silberschatz.

81 ©Silberschatz.The customer Relation Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .

The loan Relation Database System Concepts 7.82 ©Silberschatz. Korth and Sudarshan .

Korth and Sudarshan .83 ©Silberschatz.The branch Relation Database System Concepts 7.

84 ©Silberschatz. Korth and Sudarshan .The Relation branch-customer branch- Database System Concepts 7.

Korth and Sudarshan .85 ©Silberschatz.The Relation customer-loan customer- Database System Concepts 7.

Korth and Sudarshan .86 ©Silberschatz.The Relation branch-customer branch- customer-loan customer- Database System Concepts 7.

An Instance of Banker-schema Banker- Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .87 ©Silberschatz.

88 ©Silberschatz.Tabular Representation of EppF Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .

Relation bc: An Example of Reduncy in a BCNF Relation bc: Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .89 ©Silberschatz.

An Illegal bc Relation Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .90 ©Silberschatz.

Decomposition of loan-info loan- Database System Concepts 7. Korth and Sudarshan .91 ©Silberschatz.

4 Database System Concepts 7.92 ©Silberschatz. Korth and Sudarshan .Relation of Exercise 7.

- Database Review 1
- Liverpool Learning Notes
- 6 (J)Ruby on Rails-Sang Shin
- DDD Topic 3 - Enhancing Design (2)
- dbms
- Greenplum Database Overview
- Literature Review on Data Normalization and Clustering
- Chapter+1+ +the+Database+Environment
- Database Design and Implementation
- Utility
- Physical Standby Database
- dbms9
- Informix Guide to SQL-Tutorial
- SAP HANA AND ITS PERFORMANCE BENEFITS
- Dbms Ch1 Doc
- Lesson 21 Arranging Records of a Database Introduction Organizing A
- 1
- Performance Monitoring
- TRM RulesManager SE™ Brochure
- Audit Trails
- Braindump 70-442 91Q
- Intro to OpenClinica
- Outline of Database
- Mystery Posts Archive
- 93884-81857-ch4
- new features
- Southern Gasc
- Pensions-Annuities M03771 M
- Lecture-10 Making External Data Available Locally
- Fishing Tackle Equipment P39491 M

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd