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
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)
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.
Pitfalls in Relational Database Design
Relational database design requires that we find a
good 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.
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.

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)
Example of Non Lossless-Join Decomposition
Decomposition of R = (A, B)
R
2
= (A) R
2
= (B)
A B
o
o
|
1
2
1
A
o
|
B
1
2
r
[
A
(r)
[
B(r)

[
A
(r) [
B
(r)
A B
o
o
|
|
1
2
1
2
Goal Devise a Theory for the Following
Decide whether a particular relation R is in good form.
In the case that a relation R is not in good 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
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.
Functional Dependencies (Cont.)
Let R be a relation schema
o _ R and | _ R
The functional dependency
o |
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 o, they also agree
on the attributes |. That is,
t
1
[o] = t
2
[o] t
1
[| ] = t
2
[| ]
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
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 o c K, o 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

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.
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, o | is trivial if | _ o


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 Armstrongs Axioms:
if | _ o, then o | (reflexivity)
if o |, then o | (augmentation)
if o |, and | , then o (transitivity)
These rules are
sound (generate only functional dependencies that actually hold) and
complete (generate all functional dependencies that hold).
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 : union 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
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


Closure of Functional Dependencies
(Cont.)
We can further simplify manual computation of F
+
by using
the following additional rules.
If o | holds and o holds, then o | holds (union)
If o | holds, then o | holds and o holds
(decomposition)
If o | holds and | o holds, then o o holds
(pseudotransitivity)
The above rules can be inferred from Armstrongs axioms.
Closure of Attribute Sets
Given a set of attributes o, define the closure of o under F
(denoted by o
+
) as the set of attributes that are functionally
determined by o under F:
o | is in F
+
| _ o
+

Algorithm to compute o
+
, the closure of o under F
result := o;
while (changes to result) do
for each | in F do
begin
if | _ result then result := result
end
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?
Uses of Attribute Closure
There are several uses of the attribute closure algorithm:
Testing for superkey:
To test if o is a superkey, we compute o
+,
and check if o
+
contains
all attributes of R.
Testing functional dependencies
To check if a functional dependency o | holds (or, in other words,
is in F
+
), just check if | _ o
+
.
That is, we compute o
+
by using attribute closure, and then check if
it contains |.
Is a simple and cheap test, and very useful
Computing closure of F
For each _ R, we find the closure
+
, and for each S _
+
, we
output a functional dependency S.
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 minimal set of functional
dependencies equivalent to F, with no redundant dependencies
or having redundant parts of dependencies
Extraneous Attributes
Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional
dependency o | in F.
Attribute A is extraneous in o if A e o
and F logically implies (F {o |}) {(o A) |}.
Attribute A is extraneous in | if A e |
and the set of functional dependencies
(F {o |}) {o (| A)} logically implies F.
Note: implication in the opposite direction is trivial in each of
the cases above, since a stronger 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

Testing if an Attribute is Extraneous
Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional
dependency o | in F.
To test if attribute A e o is extraneous in o
1. compute (A {o})
+
using the dependencies in F
2. check that (A {o})
+
contains o; if it does, A is extraneous
To test if attribute A e | is extraneous in |
1. compute o
+
using only the dependencies in
F = (F {o |}) {o (| A)},
2. check that o
+
contains A; if it does, A is extraneous
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
o
1
|
1
and o
1
|
1
with o
1
|
1
|
2

Find a functional dependency o | with an
extraneous attribute either in o or in |
If an extraneous attribute is found, delete it from o |
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


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
Goals of Normalization
Decide whether a particular relation R is in good form.
In the case that a relation R is not in good 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
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


Example of Lossy-Join Decomposition
Lossy-join decompositions result in information loss.
Example: Decomposition of R = (A, B)
R
2
= (A) R
2
= (B)
A B
o
o
|
1
2
1
A
o
|
B
1
2
r
[
A
(r)
[
B(r)

[
A
(r) [
B
(r)
A B
o
o
|
|
1
2
1
2
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.
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
)
Testing for Dependency Preservation
To check if a dependency o| 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 = o
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 |, then the functional dependency
o | 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
)
+

Boyce-Codd Normal Form
o | is trivial (i.e., | _ o)
o 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
o |, where o _ R and | _ R, at least one of the following holds:
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
Testing for BCNF
To check if a non-trivial dependency o | causes a violation of BCNF
1. compute o
+
(the attribute closure of o), 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 B, B C}
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.
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 o | be a nontrivial functional
dependency that holds on R
i

such that o R
i
is not in F
+
,
and o | = C;
result := (result R
i
) (R
i
|) (o, | );
end
else done := true;
Note: each R
i
is in BCNF, and decomposition is lossless-join.
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
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 o _ R
i
, check that o
+
(the attribute
closure of o) either includes no attribute of R
i
- o, or includes all
attributes of R
i
.
If the condition is violated by some o | in F, the dependency
o (o
+
- o ) R
i

can be shown to hold on R
i
, and R
i
violates BCNF.
We use above dependency to decompose R
i

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
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.
Third Normal Form
A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if for all:
o | in F
+

at least one of the following holds:
o | is trivial (i.e., | e o)
o is a superkey for R
Each attribute A in | o 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).

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


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 o |, if o
is a superkey.
If o is not a superkey, we have to verify if each attribute in | 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
3NF Decomposition Algorithm
Let F
c
be a canonical cover for F;
i := 0;
for each functional dependency o | in F
c
do
if none of the schemas R
j
, 1 s j s i contains o |
then begin
i := i + 1;
R
i
:= o |
end
if none of the schemas R
j
, 1 s j s 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
)
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)
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}

Applying 3NF to Banker-info-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.
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.

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}

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.
Testing for FDs Across Relations
If decomposition is not dependency preserving, we can have an
extra materialized view for each dependency o | in F
c
that is
not preserved in the decomposition
The materialized view is defined as a projection on o | 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
Multivalued Dependencies
There are database schemas in BCNF that do not seem to be
sufficiently normalized
Consider a database
classes(course, teacher, book)
such that (c,t,b) e classes means that t is qualified to teach c,
and b is a required textbook for c
The database is supposed to list for each course the set of
teachers any one of which can be the courses instructor, and the
set of books, all of which are required for the course (no matter
who teaches it).
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
Therefore, it is better to decompose classes into:
course teacher
database
database
database
operating systems
operating systems
Avi
Hank
Sudarshan
Avi
Jim
teaches
course book
database
database
operating systems
operating systems
DB Concepts
Ullman
OS Concepts
Shaw
text
We shall see that these two relations are in Fourth Normal
Form (4NF)
Multivalued Dependencies (MVDs)
Let R be a relation schema and let o _ R and | _ R.
The multivalued dependency
o |
holds on R if in any legal relation r(R), for all pairs for
tuples t
1
and t
2
in r such that t
1
[o] = t
2
[o], there exist
tuples t
3
and t
4
in r such that:
t
1
[o] = t
2
[o] = t
3
[o] t
4
[o]
t
3
[|] = t
1
[|]
t
3
[R |] = t
2
[R |]
t
4
|] = t
2
[|]
t
4
[R |] = t
1
[R |]

MVD (Cont.)
Tabular representation of o |
Example
Let R be a relation schema with a set of attributes that are
partitioned into 3 nonempty subsets.
Y, Z, W
We say that Y Z (Y multidetermines Z)
if and only if for all possible relations r(R)
< y
1
, z
1
, w
1
> e r and < y
2
, z
2
, w
2
> e r
then
< y
1
, z
1
, w
2
> e r and < y
1
, z
2
, w
1
> e r
Note that since the behavior of Z and W are identical it follows
that Y Z if Y W

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.
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 r' that does
satisfy the multivalued dependency by adding tuples to r.

Theory of MVDs
From the definition of multivalued dependency, we can derive the
following rule:
If o |, then o |
That is, every functional dependency is also a multivalued
dependency
The closure D
+
of D is the set of all functional and multivalued
dependencies logically implied by D.
We can compute D
+
from D, using the formal definitions of functional
dependencies and multivalued dependencies.
We can manage with such reasoning for very simple multivalued
dependencies, which seem to be most common in practice
For complex dependencies, it is better to reason about sets of
dependencies using a system of inference rules (see Appendix C).
Fourth Normal Form
A relation schema R is in 4NF with respect to a set D of
functional and multivalued dependencies if for all multivalued
dependencies in D
+
of the form o |, where o _ R and | _ R,
at least one of the following hold:
o | is trivial (i.e., | _ o or o | = R)
o is a superkey for schema R
If a relation is in 4NF it is in BCNF
Restriction of Multivalued Dependencies
The restriction of D to R
i
is the set D
i
consisting of
All functional dependencies in D
+
that include only attributes of R
i
All multivalued dependencies of the form
o (| R
i
)

where o _ R
i
and o | is in D
+

4NF Decomposition Algorithm
result: = {R};
done := false;
compute D
+
;
Let D
i
denote the restriction of D
+
to R
i
while (not done)
if (there is a schema R
i
in result that is not in 4NF) then
begin
let o | be a nontrivial multivalued dependency that holds
on R
i
such that o R
i
is not in D
i
, and o|=|;
result := (result - R
i
) (R
i
- |) (o, |);
end
else done:= true;
Note: each R
i
is in 4NF, and decomposition is lossless-join
Example
R =(A, B, C, G, H, I)
F ={ A B
B HI
CG H }
R is not in 4NF since A B and A is not a superkey for R
Decomposition
a) R
1
= (A, B) (R
1
is in 4NF)
b) R
2
= (A, C, G, H, I) (R
2
is not in 4NF)
c) R
3
= (C, G, H) (R
3
is in 4NF)
d) R
4
= (A, C, G, I) (R
4
is not in 4NF)
Since A B and B HI, A HI, A I
e) R
5
= (A, I) (R
5
is in 4NF)
f)R
6
= (A, C, G) (R
6
is in 4NF)
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
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.
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 department-
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
Universal Relation Approach
Dangling tuples Tuples that disappear 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 universe 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.
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

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
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
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 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

Correctness of 3NF Decomposition
Algorithm (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 o |
Let | 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 | or o but not in both. Consider each
case separately.
Correctness of 3NF Decomposition
(Contd.)
Case 1: If B in |:
If is a superkey, the 2nd condition of 3NF is satisfied
Otherwise o must contain some attribute not in
Since B is in F
+
it must be derivable from F
c
, by using attribute
closure on .
Attribute closure not have used o | - if it had been used, o must
be contained in the attribute closure of , which is not possible, since
we assumed is not a superkey.
Now, using o (|- {B}) and B, we can derive o B
(since _ o |, and | e since B is non-trivial)
Then, B is extraneous in the right-hand side of o |; which is not
possible since o | is in F
c
.
Thus, if B is in | then must be a superkey, and the second
condition of 3NF must be satisfied.
Correctness of 3NF Decomposition
(Contd.)
Case 2: B is in o.
Since o is a candidate key, the third alternative in the definition of
3NF is trivially satisfied.
In fact, we cannot show that is a superkey.
This shows exactly why the third alternative is present in the
definition of 3NF.
Q.E.D.
End of Chapter
Sample lending Relation
Sample Relation r
The customer Relation
The loan Relation
The branch Relation
The Relation branch-customer
The Relation customer-loan
The Relation branch-customer customer-loan
An Instance of Banker-schema
Tabular Representation of o |
Relation bc: An Example of Reduncy in a BCNF Relation
An Illegal bc Relation
Decomposition of loan-info
Relation of Exercise 7.4