07 FDs Normalization
Transcript of 07 FDs Normalization
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 1/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 1
Schema Refinement and
Normal FormsChapter 19
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 2/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 2
The Evils of Redundancy
Redundancy is at the root of several problemsassociated with relational schemas: redundant storage, insert/delete/update anomalies
Integrity constraints, in particular functionaldependencies, can be used to identify schemas withsuch problems and to suggest refinements.
Main refinement technique: decomposition (replacingABCD with, say, AB and BCD, or ACD and ABD).
Decomposition should be used judiciously: Is there reason to decompose a relation?
What problems (if any) does the decomposition cause?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 3/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 3
Functional Dependencies (FDs)
A functional dependency X→Y holds over relation Rif, for every allowable instance r of R: t1 r, t2 r, (t1) = (t2) implies (t1) = (t2)
i.e., given two tuples in r , if the X values agree, then the Yvalues must also agree. (X and Y are sets of attributes.)
An FD is a statement about all allowable relations. Must be identified based on semantics of application.
Given some allowable instance r1 of R, we can check if itviolates some FD f , but we cannot tell if f holds over R!
K is a candidate key for R means that K→R
However, K→R does not require K to be minimal!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 4/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 4
Example: Constraints on Entity Set
Consider relation obtained from Hourly_Emps: Hourly_Emps (ssn, name, lot, rating, hrly_wages, hrs_worked)
Notation: We will denote this relation schema by
listing the attributes: SNLRWH This is really the set of attributes {S,N,L,R,W,H}.
Sometimes, we will refer to all attributes of a relation byusing the relation name. (e.g., Hourly_Emps for SNLRWH)
Some FDs on Hourly_Emps: ssn is the key: S→SNLRWH
rating determines hrly_wages: R→W
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 5/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
Example (Contd.)
5
Problems due to R→
W : Update anomaly: Can
we change W in justthe 1st tuple of SNLRWH?
Insertion anomaly: What ifwe want to insert an
employee and don’t knowthe hourly wage for hisrating?
Deletion anomaly: If wedelete all employees withrating 5, we lose the
information about thewage for rating 5!
Hourly_Emps2
Wages
Will 2 smaller tables be better?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 6/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 6
Reasoning About FDs
Given some FDs, we can usually infer additional FDs: ssn→did, did→lot implies ssn→lot
An FD f is implied by a set of FDs F if f holdswhenever all FDs in F hold. = closure of F is the set of all FDs that are implied by F .
Armstrong’s Axioms (X, Y, Z are sets of attributes): Reflexivity: If X⊆Y, then Y→X
Augmentation: If X→Y, then XZ→YZ for any Z
Transitivity: If X→Y and Y→Z, then X→Z
These are sound and complete inference rules for FDs!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 7/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 7
Reasoning About FDs (Contd.)
Couple of additional rules (that follow from AA): Union: If X→Y and X→Z, then X→YZ
Decomposition: If X→YZ, then X→Y and X→Z
Example: Contracts(cid,sid,jid,did,pid,qty,value), and: C is the key: C→CSJDPQV
Project purchases each part using single contract: JP→C
Dept purchases at most one part from a supplier: SD→P
JP→
C, C→
CSJDPQV imply JP→
CSJDPQV SD→P implies SDJ→ JP
SDJ→ JP, JP→CSJDPQV imply SDJ→CSJDPQV
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 8/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 8
Reasoning About FDs (Contd.)
Computing the closure of a set of FDs can beexpensive. (Size of closure is exponential in # attrs!)
Typically, we just want to check if a given FD X →Y is
in the closure of a set of FDs F . An efficient check: Compute attribute closure of X (denoted ) wrt F:
• Set of all attributes A such that X→A is in
• There is a linear time algorithm to compute this.
Check if Y is in
Does F = {A→B, B→C, C D→E } imply A→E? i.e, is A→E in the closure ? Equivalently, is E in ?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 9/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 9
Normalization
“There are two rules in life:
Rule #1: Don’t sweat the small stuff.
Rule #2: Everything is small stuff.”
(Finn Taylor)
Life is as complicated as we make it—normalization
can be simplified.☻
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 10/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 10
Normal Forms
Returning to the issue of schema refinement, the firstquestion to ask is whether any refinement is needed!
If a relation is in a certain normal form (BCNF, 3NF
etc.), it is known that certain kinds of problems areavoided/minimized. This can be used to help usdecide whether decomposing the relation will help.
Role of FDs in detecting redundancy: Consider a relation R with 3 attributes, ABC.
• No FDs hold: There is no redundancy here.
• Given A→B: Several tuples could have the same Avalue, and if so, they’ll all have the same B value!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 11/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
Normalization
What is normalization?
In general, normalization removesduplication and minimizes redundant chunksof data.
The result is better organization and moreeffective use of physical space, among otherfactors.
Normalization is not always the best solution!
11
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 12/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
1NF: First Normal Form
Eliminate repeating fields. Furthermore, allfields must contain a single value.
Define primary keys. All records must beidentified uniquely with a primary key. Aprimary key is unique and thus no duplicatevalues are allowed.
All fields other than the primary key mustdepend on the primary key, either directly orindirectly.
12
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 13/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
1NF: First Normal Form
13
Table in 0thNormal Form!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 14/86
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 15/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
1NF: First Normal Form
apply 1NF: removerepeating fields bycreating a new table
where the originaland new table arelinked in a one-to-many relationship.
15
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 16/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
1NF: First Normal Form
apply 1NF: assignprimary keys
16
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 17/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
2NF: Second Normal Form
The table must be in 1NF.
All non-key values must be fully functionallydependent on the primary key. In other words,non-key fields not completely and individuallydependent on the primary key are not allowed.
Partial dependencies must be removed. Apartial dependency is a special type of
functional dependency that exists when a fieldis fully dependent on a part of a compositeprimary key.
17
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 18/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
2NF: Second Normal Form
Full functional dependence
given: X→Y
Y depends on X and X alone therefore
in: XZ→Y
Y is not in full functional dependence
Y is partially dependent on the compositekey XZ
18
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 19/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
2NF: Second Normal Form
Partial Dependency
19
Key Attributes XAttribute ACase 1:
A not in Key
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 20/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 20
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 21/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 21
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 22/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 22
Table in 1NF!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 23/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
2NF: Second Normal Form
2NF performs a seemingly similar function tothat of 1NF, but creates a table whererepeating values rather than repeating fields
are removed to a new table. Typically, 2NF creates one-to-many
relationships between static and dynamic,removing static data from transactional tables
into new tables.
23
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 24/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
separate staticdata fromdynamic data
is this in 2NFalready?
24
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 25/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
connect thetables with theproperrelationship
(one-to-one orone-to-many)
is this in 2NFalready?
25
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 26/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
all tables musthave a primarykey (1NFrequirement!)
is this in 2NFalready?
26
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 27/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 27
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 28/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 28
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 29/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 29
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 30/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
2NF: Second Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
30
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 31/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
2NF: Second Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
31
✕
✔
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 32/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
3NF: Third Normal Form
The table must be in 2NF.
Eliminate transitive dependencies.
A transitive dependency is where a field isindirectly determined by the primary keybecause that field is functionally dependenton a second field, where that second field isdependent on the primary key.
In basic terms, every field in a table that isnot a key field must be directly dependenton the primary key.
32
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 33/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
3NF: Third Normal Form
Transitive Dependency
33
Key Attributes X Attribute A
KeyAttributes X
Attribute A
Case 1:A not in Key
Case 2:
A is in Key
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 34/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 34
many-to-many relationships! how to search for single taskassigned to a single employee?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 35/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 35
3NF Transformation! decomposition of entities
involved in a many-to-many relationship
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 36/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 36
3NF Transformation! amalgamating duplication
into a new table
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 37/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 37
3NF Transformation! transitive dependency
removed
a transitive dependency exists because it is
assumed that:1. each employee is
assigned to a
particular department2. each department withina company is exclusivelybased in one specific city
CAUTION: too many
tables will result to slower queries having to join too
many tables
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 38/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 38
3NF Transformation! remove calculated fields
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 39/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 39
Third Normal Form (3NF)
Reln R with FDs F is in 3NF if, for all X→A in A∈X (called a trivial FD), or
X contains a key for R, or
A is part of some key for R.
Minimality of a key is crucial in third condition above!
If R is in 3NF, some redundancy is possible. It is acompromise, used when BCNF not achievable. Lossless-join, dependency-preserving decomposition of R into a
collection of 3NF relations always possible.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 40/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
3NF: Third Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
40
?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 41/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
3NF: Third Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
41
✔
all the nonkey attributes (B and C) are fully dependent on the
primary key (A)
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 42/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
3NF: Third Normal Form
Is this in 3NF??
42
?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 43/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
3NF: Third Normal Form
Is this in 3NF??
43
✕
C, which is a nonkey attribute, is also functionally dependent on
B, which is also a nonkey attribute. Therefore, the relation R isnot in 3NF.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 44/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
3NF: Third Normal Form
Is this in 3NF??
44
✕
✔
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 45/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
The table must be in 3NF.
A table can have only one candidate key.
A candidate key has potential for being atable’s primary key.
A table is not allowed more than oneprimary key because referential integrityrequires it as such.
45
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 46/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
BCNF is an odd one because it is a little like aspecial case of 3NF.
BCNF requires that every determinant in a
table is a candidate key. If there is only one candidate key, 3NF and
BCNF are the same.
Essentially, BCNF prohibits a table from having
two possible primary keys.
46
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 47/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 47
BCNF Transformation!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 48/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 48
Boyce-Codd Normal Form (BCNF)
Reln R with FDs F is in BCNF if, for all X→A in A∈X (called a trivial FD), or
X contains a key for R.
In other words, R is in BCNF if the only non-trivialFDs that hold over R are key constraints. No dependency in R that can be predicted using FDs alone.
If we are shown two tuples that agree uponthe X value, we cannot infer the A value in
one tuple from the A value in the other. If example relation is in BCNF, the 2 tuples
must be identical (since X is a key).
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 49/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
49
?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 50/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
50
✕
The R relation is not in 2NF because, like before, C is in a partial dependence with the primary key.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 51/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
51
✕?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 52/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
52
✕
✕We can’t because we lose an FD, namely D→ C. Therefore, we
need to find another decomposition.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 53/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
53
✕?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 54/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in 2NF??
54
✕✔
With this decomposition, no FDs are lost. And the resulting relations are in 2NF.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 55/86
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 56/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in 3NF??
56
✕✔
The resulting relations are not only in 2NF, but they are also in3NF.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 57/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in BCNF??
57
?
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 58/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in BCNF??
58
✕
B and D are determinants and are not candidate keys. Therefore,the relation R2 is not in BCNF, while the relation R1 is.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 59/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Is this in BCNF??
59
✕
✔
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 60/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke
BCNF: Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Normalized Form!
60
✔
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 61/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 61
Recap!
1st Normal Form (1NF)—Eliminate repeating groupssuch that all records in all tables can be identifieduniquely by a primary key in each table.
2nd Normal Form (2NF)—All non-key values must befully functionally dependent on the primary key. Nopartial dependencies are allowed.
3rd Normal Form (3NF)—Eliminate transitivedependencies.
Boyce-Codd Normal Form (BCNF)—Everydeterminant in a table is a candidate key.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 62/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 62
Decomposition of a Relation Scheme
Suppose that relation R contains attributes A1 ... An.A decomposition of R consists of replacing R by two ormore relations such that: Each new relation scheme contains a subset of the attributes
of R (and no attributes that do not appear in R), and Every attribute of R appears as an attribute of one of the
new relations.
Intuitively, decomposing R means we will store
instances of the relation schemes produced by thedecomposition, instead of instances of R.
E.g., Can decompose SNLRWH into SNLRH and RW.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 63/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 63
Example Decomposition
Decompositions should be used only when needed. SNLRWH has FDs S→SNLRWH and R→W
Second FD causes violation of 3NF; W values repeatedlyassociated with R values.
Easiest way to fix this is to create a relation RW to storethese associations, and to remove W from the main schema:
• i.e., we decompose SNLRWH into SNLRH and RW
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 64/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 64
Problems with Decompositions
There are three potential problems to consider:
Some queries become more expensive.
• e.g., How much did sailor Joe earn? (salary = W*H)
Given instances of the decomposed relations, we may notbe able to reconstruct the corresponding instance of theoriginal relation!
• Fortunately, not in the SNLRWH example.
Checking some dependencies may require joining the
instances of the decomposed relations.• Fortunately, not in the SNLRWH example.
Tradeoff : Must consider these issues vs. redundancy.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 65/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 65
Problems with Decompositions
Illustration of a Lossy Decomposition
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 66/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 66
Lossless Join Decompositions
Decomposition of R into X and Y is lossless-join w.r.t. aset of FDs F if, for every instance r that satisfies F: (r ) (r ) = r
It is always true that r (r ) (r ) In general, the other direction does not hold! If it does, the
decomposition is lossless-join.
Definition extended to decomposition into 3 or morerelations in a straightforward way.
It is essential that all decompositions used to deal withredundancy be lossless! (Avoids Problem (2).)
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 67/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 67
More on Lossless Join
The decomposition of R into X and Y islossless-join wrt F if and only if the closure ofF contains: X∩Y → X, or
X∩Y → Y
in other words, the attributes common to X and Ymust contain a key for either X or Y
In particular, the decomposition of R into
R - Y and XY is lossless-join if X→ Y holdsover R.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 68/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 68
Dependency Preserving Decomposition
Consider CSJDPQV, C is key, JP→C and SD→P. BCNF decomposition: CSJDQV and SDP
Problem: Checking JP→C requires a join!
This is NOT a dependency-preserving decomposition!!
Dependency preserving decomposition (Intuitive): If R is decomposed into X, Y and Z, and we enforce the FDs
that hold on X, on Y and on Z, then all FDs that were givento hold on R must also hold. (Avoids Problem (3).)
A dependency preserving decomposition allows us toenforce all FDs by examining a single relation instance oneach insertion and update.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 69/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 69
Dependency Preserving Decomposition
Projection of set of FDs F : If R is decomposed into Xand Y, and let F be a set of FDs over R. The projectionof F on X (denoted FX ) is the set of FDs in the closure
of F+ (not just F) that involve only attributes of X.
U→V is in FX iff U, V are in X.
Decomposition of R into X and Y is dependency preserving if (FX ∪ FY ) + = F +
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 70/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 70
Dependency Preserving Decompositions(Contd.)
Important to consider F +, not F, in this definition: Consider relation R with attributes ABC
decomposed into AB and BC
FDs of R (F) : A→B, B→C, C→A
A→B is in FAB, B→C is in FBC
Is this dependency preserving? Is C→A preserved?????
Dependency preserving does not imply lossless join: ABC, A→B, decomposed into AB and BC.
And vice-versa! (Example?)
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 71/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 71
Decomposition into BCNF
Consider relation R with FDs F. If X→Y violatesBCNF, decompose R into R - Y and XY. Repeated application of this idea will give us a collection of
relations that are in BCNF; lossless join decomposition, andguaranteed to terminate.
e.g., CSJDPQV, key C, JP→C, SD→P, J→S
To deal with SD→P, decompose into SDP, CSJDQV.
To deal with J→S, decompose CSJDQV into JS and CJDQV
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 72/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 72
Decomposition into BCNF
Decomposition of CSJDPQV
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 73/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 73
Decomposition into BCNF
The decomposition of CSJDQV into SDP, JS, andCJDQV is not dependency-preserving. JP→C cannotbe enforced without a join.
One way to deal with this situation is to add a relationwith attributes CJP. In effect, this solution amounts tostoring some information redundantly in order tomake the dependency enforcement cheaper.
Problem: Redundancy across relations!!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 74/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 74
Decomposition into BCNF
Suppose that we choose to decompose CSJDPQVinto JS and CJDPQV instead (choose J→S first!).
The only dependencies that hold over CJDPQV are
JP→C and the key dependency C→CJDPQV. Since JPis a key, CJDPQV is in BCNF.
Thus, the schemas JS and CJDPQV represent alossless-join decomposition of Contracts into BCNF
relations too! designer must discriminate among alternatives!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 75/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 75
BCNF and Dependency Preservation
In general, there may not be a dependency preservingdecomposition into BCNF. e.g., CSZ, CS→Z, Z→C
Can’t decompose while preserving 1st FD; not in BCNF.
Similarly, decomposition of CSJDQV into SDP, JS andCJDQV is not dependency preserving (w.r.t. the FDs
JP→C, SD→P and J→S). However, it is a lossless join decomposition.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 76/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 76
Decomposition into 3NF
Clearly, the algorithm for lossless join decomp intoBCNF can be used to obtain a lossless join decompinto 3NF (can stop earlier).
Refinement: Instead of the given set of FDs F, use aminimal cover for F .
the resulting decomposition will be lossless join anddependency preserving!
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 77/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 77
Minimal Cover for a Set of FDs
Minimal cover G for a set of FDs F: Closure of F = closure of G.
Right hand side of each FD in G is a single attribute.
If we modify G by deleting an FD or by deleting attributes
from an FD in G, the closure changes. Intuitively, every FD in G is needed, and ``as small as
possible’’ in order to get the same closure as F.
e.g., A→B, ABCD→E, EF→GH, ACDF→EG has the
following minimal cover: A→B, ACD→E, EF→G and EF→H
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 78/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 78
Minimal Cover for a Set of FDs
Given (F): A→ B, ABCD→ E, EF→ G, EF→H, ACDF→ EG
rewrite ACDF→ EG ACDF→ E and ACDF→ G
delete ACDF→ G bec. it is implied by the ff FDs: A→ B, ABCD→ E, EF→ G
delete ACDF→ E, and so on.
Minimal Cover: A→ B, ACD→ E, EF→ G, and EF→H
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 79/86
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 80/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 80
Minimal Cover for a Set of FDs
What is the minimal cover of: ABCD→ E, E→ D, A→ B, and AC→ D
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 81/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 81
Minimal Cover for a Set of FDs
What is the minimal cover of: ABCD→ E, E→ D, A→ B, and AC→ D
FDs are already in standard form.
Minimize the left side of each FD: AC→ E, E→ D, A→ B, and AC→ D
Delete redundant FDs: AC→ E, E→ D implies AC→ D
Minimal Cover: AC→ E, E→ D, and A→ B
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 82/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 82
Decomposition into 3NF
Refined algo for a 3NF decomposition which islossless join and dependency preserving :
Consider relation R with FDs G that is a minimal cover. If
X→Y violates 3NF, decompose R into R - Y and XY. For each FD X→A in G that is not preserved, create a
relation schema XA and add it to the decomposition of R
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 83/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 83
Decomposition into 3NF
Consider the Contracts relation with attributesCSJDPQV and FDs JP→ C, SD→ P, and J→ S.
If we decompose CSJDPQV into SDP and CSJDQV, thenSDP is in BCNF, but CSJDQV is not even in 3NF.
So we decompose it further into JS and CJDQV.
The relation schemas SDP, JS, and CJDQV are in 3NF (infact, in BCNF), and the decomposition is lossless-join.However, the dependency JP→ C is not preserved.
This problem can be addressed by adding a relation schemaCJP to the decomposition.
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 84/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 84
3NF vs BCNF
It is always possible to decompose a relation intorelations in 3NF and
The decomposition is lossless
Dependencies are preserved
It is always possible to decompose a relation intorelations in BCNF and
The decomposition is lossless
It may not be possible to preserve dependencies
But a schema that is in 3NF but not in BCNF maycontain redundancy
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 85/86
Database Management Systems, 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke 85
Refining an ER Diagram
1st diagram translated:Workers(S,N,L,D,C)Departments(D,M,B) Lots associated with workers.
Suppose all workers in a
dept are assigned the samelot: D→L
Redundancy; fixed by:Workers2(S,N,D,C)Dept_Lots(D,L)
Can fine-tune this:Workers2(S,N,D,C)Departments(D,M,B,L)
lot
dname
budgetdid
sincename
Works_In DepartmentsEmployees
ssn
lot
dname
budget
did
sincename
Works_In DepartmentsEmployees
ssn
Before:
After:
8/9/2019 07 FDs Normalization
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/07-fds-normalization 86/86
Summary of Schema Refinement
If a relation is in BCNF, it is free of redundancies thatcan be detected using FDs. Thus, trying to ensurethat all relations are in BCNF is a good heuristic.
If a relation is not in BCNF, we can try to decompose
it into a collection of BCNF relations. Must consider whether all FDs are preserved. If a lossless-
join, dependency preserving decomposition into BCNF isnot possible (or unsuitable, given typical queries), shouldconsider decomposition into 3NF.
Decompositions should be carried out and/or re-examinedwhile keeping performance requirements in mind.