FDs and Normalization

FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCIES
Definition
Let R be the relation, and let x and y be the arbitrary subset of the set of attributes of R. Then we say that Y is functionally dependent on x in symbol. XY (Read x functionally determines y) If and only if each x value in R has associated with it precisely one y value in R In other words Whenever two tuples of R agree on their x value, they also agree on their Y value.
Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU
Example (SCP Relation)

S# S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S4 S4 S4 City London P# P1 P2 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P5 QTY 100 100 200 200 300 400 400 400
London Paris Paris Delhi Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata
Example (SCP Relation) (contd..)

One FD : - ( { S#} {City})
Because every tuple of that relation with a given S# value also has the same city value.
The left and right hand side of an FD are sometimes called determinant and the dependents respectively.
Exercise
Check whether following relation satisfy FD as not < S#, P# > <QTY> <S#, P#> <City> < S#, P#> <City, QTY> <S#, P#> <S#> <S#, P#> <S#, P#, QTY, City> <OTY> <S#>
Extended definition over basic one

Let R be the relation variable, and let x and y be arbitrary subset of the set of attributes of R. Then we says that Y is functionally dependent on x in symbol. XY (Read x functionally determines y) If and only if, in every possible legal value of R, each x value has associated with it precisely one y value Or in other words In every possible legal value of R, whenever two tuple agree on their X values, they also agree on their Y value.
TRIVIAL & NON-TRIVIAL DEPENDENCIES
One-way to reduce the size of the set of FD we need to deal with is to eliminate the trivial dependencies. An FD is trivial if and only if the right hand side is a subset of the left hand side. e.g. <S#, P#> <S#>. (Trivial) Nontrivial dependencies are the one, which are not trivial.
CLOSURE of a set of dependencies

The set of all FDs that are implied by a given set S of FDs is called the closure of S, denoted by S+
So we need an algorithm which compute S+ from S.

Algorithm
CLOSURE (Z, S): = Z; DO forever For each FD X -> Y in S Do; if X < CLOSURE [Z, S] /* <= subset of */ then CLOSURE [Z,S] : = CLOSURE [Z, Z] U Y; end; If CLOSURE [Z, S] did not change on this iteration. Then leave loop; /* Computation complete */ End;
Example
Suppose use are given R with attributes A, B, C, D, E, F, and FDs A BC E CF BE CD EF Then compute the closure (A, B)+ of the set of attributes under this set of FDs
Solution
1. We initialize the result CLOSURE [Z, S] to <A, B> 2. We now go round the inner loop four times, once for each for the given FDs. An the first iteration (For FD A BC), we find that the left hand side is indeed a subset of CLOSURE (Z, S) as computed so for, so we add attributes (B and C) to the result. CLOSURE [Z, S] is now the set <A, B, C>.
Solution
3. On the second iteration (for FD E CF>. we find that the left hand side is not a subset of the result as computed so for, which than remain unchanged. 4. On the third iteration (For FD B E), we add E to the closure, which now has the value <A, B, C, E> 5. On the fourth iteration, (for FD CD EF), remains unchanged.
Solution
6. Inner loop times, on the first iteration no change, second, it expands to <A,B, C, E, F> third & fourth, no change. 7. Again inner loop four times, no change, and so the whole process terminates.
Armstrong rules
Reflexivity: if B is a subset of A, then A B. Augmentation: if A B then AC BC Transitivity: it A B and B C then A C. Self determination: A A. Decomposition: If A BC, then AB, AC. Union: it A B and A C, then A BC Composition: if A B, C D then AC BD. 8. If A B and C D, then All (C B) BD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Armstrong rules (contd..)

Now we define a set of FD to be irreducible as minimal; if and only if it satisfies the following two properties. (1) The right hand side of every FD in S involve just one attribute (i.e., it is a singleton set) (2) The left hand side of every FD in S is irreducible in turn meaning that no attribute can be discarded from the determinant without changing the CLUSURE S+.
Example
A BC, BC AB AB C AC D
Compute an irreducible set of FD that is equivalent to this given set.

Solution
(1) The step is to rewrite the FD such that each has a singleton right hand side. AB AC BC AB AB C AC D We observe that the FD A B occurs twice. So one occurrence will be eliminated.
Solution
2. Next, attributed C can be eliminated from the left hand side of the FD AC D Because we have A C, By augmentation A AC And we are given AC D, So A D by transitivity;
Thus C on the left hand side is redundant.

Solution
3. Next, we observe that the FD AB C can be eliminated, because again we have
By augmentation AB CB By decomposition AB C 4. Finally, the FD A C is implied by the FD A B and B C, so it can be eliminated. Now we have A B BC AD This set is irreducible.
AC
Example
A BC BE CD EF
Show that FD AD F for R.
Solution
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A BC (given) A C (1, decomposition) AD CD (2, augmentation) CD EF (given) AD EF (3 & 4, transitivity) AD F (5, decomposition
Normalization
Learning Objectives
Definition of normalization and its purpose in database design Types of normal forms 1NF, 2NF, 3NF, BCNF, and 4NF Transformation from lower normal forms to higher normal forms Design concurrent use of normalization and E-R modeling are to produce a good database design Usefulness of denormalization to generate information efficiently
Normalization
Main objective in developing a logical data model for relational database systems is to create an accurate representation of the data, its relationships, and constraints. To achieve this objective, must identify a suitable set of relations.
Normalization
Four most commonly used normal forms are first (1NF), second (2NF) and third (3NF) normal forms, and BoyceCodd normal form (BCNF). Based on functional dependencies among the attributes of a relation. A relation can be normalized to a specific form to prevent possible occurrence of update anomalies.
Normalization
Normalization is the process for assigning attributes to entities
Reduces data redundancies Helps eliminate data anomalies Produces controlled redundancies to link tables
Normalization stages
1NF - First normal form 2NF - Second normal form 3NF - Third normal form 4NF - Fourth normal form
Major aim of relational database design is to group attributes into relations to minimize data redundancy and reduce file storage space required by base relations. Problems associated with data redundancy are illustrated by comparing the following Staff and Branch relations with the StaffBranch relation.
Data Redundancy
Data Redundancy
Data Redundancy
StaffBranch relation has redundant data: details of a branch are repeated for every member of staff. In contrast, branch information appears only once for each branch in Branch relation and only branchNo is repeated in Staff relation, to represent where each member of staff works.
Update Anomalies
Relations that contain redundant information may potentially suffer from update anomalies.
Types of update anomalies include:

Insertion, Deletion, Modification.
Functional Dependency
Main concept associated with normalization. Functional Dependency
Describes relationship between attributes in a relation. If A and B are attributes of relation R, B is functionally dependent on A (denoted A B), if each value of A in R is associated with exactly one value of B in R.
Property of the meaning (or semantics) of the attributes in a relation. Diagrammatic representation:
Determinant of a functional dependency refers to attribute or group of attributes on left-hand side of the arrow.
Example - Functional Dependency
Main characteristics of functional dependencies used in normalization:
have a 1:1 relationship between attribute(s) on left and right-hand side of a dependency; hold for all time; are nontrivial.
Complete set of functional dependencies for a given relation can be very large. Important to find an approach that can reduce set to a manageable size. Need to identify set of functional dependencies (X) for a relation that is smaller than complete set of functional dependencies (Y) for that relation and has property that every functional dependency in Y is implied by functional dependencies in X.
The Process of Normalization

Formal technique for analyzing a relation based on its primary key and functional dependencies between its attributes. Often executed as a series of steps. Each step corresponds to a specific normal form, which has known properties. As normalization proceeds, relations become progressively more restricted (stronger) in format and also less vulnerable to update anomalies.
Relationship Between Normal Forms
Unnormalized Form (UNF)

A table that contains one or more repeating groups. To create an unnormalized table:
transform data from information source (e.g. form) into table format with columns and rows.
First Normal Form (1NF)

A relation in which intersection of each row and column contains one and only one value.
Nominate an attribute or group of attributes to act as the key for the unnormalized table.
UNF to 1NF
Identify repeating group(s) in unnormalized table which repeats for the key attribute(s).
UNF to 1NF
All key attributes defined No repeating groups in table All attributes dependent on primary key
Second Normal Form (2NF)

Based on concept of full functional dependency:
A and B are attributes of a relation, B is fully dependent on A if B is functionally dependent on A but not on any proper subset of A.
2NF - A relation that is in 1NF and every nonprimary-key attribute is fully functionally dependent on the primary key (no partial dependency)
1NF to 2NF
Identify primary key for the 1NF relation. Identify functional dependencies in the relation. If partial dependencies exist on the primary key remove them by placing them in a new relation along with copy of their determinant.
2NF Conversion Results

Figure 4.5
Third Normal Form (3NF)

Based on concept of transitive dependency:
A, B and C are attributes of a relation such that if A B and B C, then C is transitively dependent on A through B. (Provided that A is not functionally dependent on B or C).
3NF - A relation that is in 1NF and 2NF and in which no non-primary-key attribute is transitively dependent on the primary key.
Identify the primary key in the 2NF relation. Identify functional dependencies in the relation.
2NF to 3NF
If transitive dependencies exist on the primary key remove them by placing them in a new relation along with copy of their determinant.

Prevent referential integrity violation by adding a JOB_CODE
PROJECT (PROJ_NUM, PROJ_NAME) ASSIGN (PROJ_NUM, EMP_NUM, HOURS) EMPLOYEE (EMP_NUM, EMP_NAME, JOB_CLASS) JOB (JOB_CODE, JOB_DESCRIPTION, CHG_HOUR)
Second normal form (2NF)
General Definitions of 2NF and 3NF

A relation that is in 1NF and every nonprimary-key attribute is fully functionally dependent on any candidate key.
Third normal form (3NF)

A relation that is in 1NF and 2NF and in which no non-primary-key attribute is transitively dependent on any candidate key.
Based on functional dependencies that take into account all candidate keys in a relation, however BCNF also has additional constraints compared with general definition of 3NF. BCNF - A relation is in BCNF if and only if every determinant is a candidate key.
BoyceCodd Normal Form (BCNF)
Difference between 3NF and BCNF is that for a functional dependency A B, 3NF allows this dependency in a relation if B is a primarykey attribute and A is not a candidate key.
BoyceCodd normal form (BCNF)
Whereas, BCNF insists that for this dependency to remain in a relation, A must be a candidate key. Every relation in BCNF is also in 3NF. However, relation in 3NF may not be in BCNF.
Violation of BCNF is quite rare.
BoyceCodd normal form (BCNF)
Potential to violate BCNF may occur in a relation that:

contains two (or more) composite candidate keys; the candidate keys overlap (i.e. have at least one attribute in common).
3NF Table Not in BCNF
Figure 4.7
Decomposition of Table Structure to Meet BCNF
BCNF Conversion Results
Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)
Fourth Normal Form (4NF)

Although BCNF removes anomalies due to functional dependencies, another type of dependency called a multi-valued dependency (MVD) can also cause data redundancy. Possible existence of MVDs in a relation is due to 1NF and can result in data redundancy.
Dependency between attributes (for example, A, B, and C) in a relation, such that for each value of A there is a set of values for B and a set of values for C. However, set of values for B and C are independent of each other.
Fourth Normal Form (4NF) MVD

MVD between attributes A, B, and C in a relation using the following notation:
A B A C

MVD can be further defined as being trivial or nontrivial. MVD A B in relation R is defined as being trivial if (a) B is a subset of A or (b) A B = R. MVD is defined as being nontrivial if neither (a) nor (b) are satisfied. Trivial MVD does not specify a constraint on a relation, while a nontrivial MVD does specify a constraint.

Defined as a relation that is in BCNF and contains no nontrivial MVDs.
4NF - Example
3NF Table Not in BCNF
Figure 4.7
Decomposition of Table Structure to Meet BCNF
Decomposition into BCNF
Figure 4.9
Set of Tables in 4NF
Multivalued Dependencies (an employee can work for many services and on many projects
Denormalization
Normalization is one of many database design goals Normalized table requirements
Additional processing Loss of system speed
Normalization purity is difficult to sustain due to conflict in:

Design efficiency Information requirements Processing
Unnormalized Table Defects

Data updates less efficient Indexing more cumbersome No simple strategies for creating views
Summary
We will use normalization in database design to create a set of relations in 3FN normal form:
Each entity has a unique primary key, and each attribute depends upon the primary key No partial dependency No transitive dependency

FDs and Normalization

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FDs and Normalization

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCIES

Example (SCP Relation)

London Paris Paris Delhi Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Example (SCP Relation) (contd..)

Extended definition over basic one

TRIVIAL & NON-TRIVIAL DEPENDENCIES

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

CLOSURE of a set of dependencies

So we need an algorithm which compute S+ from S.

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Armstrong rules (contd..)

Compute an irreducible set of FD that is equivalent to this given set.

Thus C on the left hand side is redundant.

Show that FD AD F for R.

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Types of update anomalies include:

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Example - Functional Dependency

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

The Process of Normalization

Relationship Between Normal Forms

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Unnormalized Form (UNF)

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

First Normal Form (1NF)

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Second Normal Form (2NF)

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

2NF Conversion Results

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Third Normal Form (3NF)

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

3NF Conversion Results

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Second normal form (2NF)

General Definitions of 2NF and 3NF

Third normal form (3NF)

BoyceCodd Normal Form (BCNF)

BoyceCodd normal form (BCNF)

Violation of BCNF is quite rare.

BoyceCodd normal form (BCNF)

Potential to violate BCNF may occur in a relation that:

3NF Table Not in BCNF

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Decomposition of Table Structure to Meet BCNF

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

BCNF Conversion Results

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)

Deepak Gour, Faculty DBMS, School of Engineering, SPSU

Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)