67 Pages

L9

Course: CS 3311, Fall 2009
School: Allan Hancock College
Rating:
 
 
 
 
 

Word Count: 5635

Document Preview

7: Chapter Relational Database Design Database System Concepts Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use Chapter 7: Relational Database Design First Normal Form Pitfalls in Relational Database Design Functional Dependencies Decomposition Boyce-Codd Normal Form Third Normal Form Overall Database Design Process WARNING "I am studing IS and one of the...

Register Now

Unformatted Document Excerpt

Coursehero >> California >> Allan Hancock College >> CS 3311

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one
below including study guides, practice problems, reference materials, practice exams, textbook help and tutor support.

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, practice problems, reference materials, practice exams, textbook help and tutor support.
7: Chapter Relational Database Design Database System Concepts Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use Chapter 7: Relational Database Design First Normal Form Pitfalls in Relational Database Design Functional Dependencies Decomposition Boyce-Codd Normal Form Third Normal Form Overall Database Design Process WARNING "I am studing IS and one of the courses is Database Concepts. Normailization in the text was like reading Greek." SOLUTION: Capture the intuition + more exercises Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 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: multivalued attributes: e.g., 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 Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.3 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.4 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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. Avoid redundant data Ensure that relationships among attributes are represented Facilitate the checking of updates for violation of database integrity constraints. Design Goals: Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.5 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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 Cannot store information about a branch if no loans exist Can use null values, but they are difficult to handle. 7.6 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Null values Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 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 (R1, R2): R = R1 R2 Lossless-join decomposition. For all possible relations r on schema R r = R1 (r) R2 (r) Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.7 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example of Non Lossless-Join Decomposition Decomposition of R = (A, B) R1 = (A) R2 = (B) A B 1 2 B(r) Another example A B 1 2 1 r A(r) A 1 4 7 B 2 5 2 C 3 6 8 A 1 4 7 B 2 5 2 A (r) B (r) A B 1 2 1 2 Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. A 1 4 7 1 7 7.8 B 2 5 2 2 2 C 3 6 8 8 3 B 2 5 2 C 3 6 8 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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 {R1, R2, ..., Rn} such that each relation is in good form the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition functional dependencies multivalued dependencies (out of the scope of this course) Our theory is based on: Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.9 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.10 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Functional Dependencies (Cont.) Let R be a relation schema R and R The functional dependency (functionally) determines ; is (functionally) determined by holds on R if and only if for any legal relations r(R), whenever any two tuples t1 and t2 of r agree on the attributes , they also agree on the attributes . That is, t1[] = t2 [] t1[ ] = t2 [ ] Example: Consider r(A,B) with the following instance of r. A 1 1 3 B 4 5 7 On this instance, A B does NOT hold, but B A does hold. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.11 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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 K, 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 loan-number customer-name loan-number will be the key for R(loan-number, amount) but would not expect the following to hold (in general): Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.12 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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. We say that F holds on R if all legal relations on R satisfy the set of functional dependencies F. specify constraints on the set of legal relations 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. think of FDs as constraints, such as CHECK(qty > min_qty) Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.13 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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, is trivial if Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.14 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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. For example: 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 , then if , then (reflexivity) (augmentation) if , and , then (transitivity) sound (generate only functional dependencies that actually hold) and complete (generate all functional dependencies that hold). F+ is usually what we want to enforce a consistent state of the DB These rules are Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.15 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example R = (A, B, C, G, H, I) F={ AB AC CG H CG I B H} some members of F+ AH by transitivity from A B and B H by augmenting A C with G, to get AG CG and then transitivity with CG I by augmenting CG I to infer CG CGI, and augmenting of CG H to infer CGI HI, and then transitivity Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.16 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan AG I CG HI 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, 5th Ed. 7.17 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Closure of Functional Dependencies (Cont.) We can further simplify manual computation of F+ by using the following additional rules. If holds and holds, then holds (union) If holds, then holds and holds (decomposition) If holds and holds, then holds (pseudotransitivity) The above rules can be inferred from Armstrong's axioms. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.18 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Closure of Attribute Sets Given a set of attributes , define the closure of under F (denoted by +) as the set of attributes that are functionally determined by under F e.g., F = {A B, A C}, then A+ = ABC Semantics: A functionally determines any subset of A+ (i.e., ABC) and no more other attribute combinations (i.e., closure) Algorithm to compute +, the closure of under F result := ; while (changes to result) do for each in F do begin if result then result := result end Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.19 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example of Attribute Set Closure R = (A, B, C, G, H, I) F = {A B AC CG H CG I B H} (AG)+ 1. result = AG 2. result = AGBC 3. result = AGBCH (A C and A B) (CG H and CG AGBC) (CG I and CG AGBCH) 4. result = AGBCHI = ABCGHI Is AG a candidate key? 1. Is AG a super key? 1. Does AG R? Is (AG)+ R Does A R? Is (A)+ R Does G R? Is (G)+ R 2. Is any subset of AG a superkey? 1. 2. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.20 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Uses of Attribute Closure There are several uses of the attribute closure algorithm: Testing for superkey: To test if is a superkey, we compute +, and check if + contains all attributes of R. To check if a functional dependency holds (or, in other words, is in F+), just check if +. That is, we compute + by using attribute closure, and then check if it contains . Is a simple and cheap test, and very useful For each R, we find the closure +, and for each S +, we output a functional dependency S. Testing functional dependencies Computing closure of F Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.21 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Canonical Cover Sets of functional dependencies may have redundant dependencies that can be inferred from the others 1. 2. For example: 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 G {A B, B C, A D} A CD AD A C and A D E.g.: on LHS: to F or use attrib closure A CD F+ = G+ {A B, B C, AC D} can be simplified {A B, B C, A D} ??? Intuitively, a canonical cover of F is a "minimal" set of functional dependencies equivalent to F, having no redundant dependencies or redundant parts of dependencies 7.22 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. Extraneous Attributes Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional dependency in F. Attribute A is extraneous in if A and F logically implies (F { }) {( A) }. Attribute A is extraneous in if A and the set of functional dependencies (F { }) { ( A)} logically implies F. beware of the direction of the implications 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, AB C} logically implies A C (i.e. the result of dropping B from AB C). C is extraneous in AB CD since AB C can be inferred even after deleting C 7.23 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example: Given F = {A C, AB CD} Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. Testing if an Attribute is Extraneous Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional dependency in F. To test if attribute A is extraneous in 1. 2. compute ({} A)+ using the dependencies in F check that ({} A)+ contains ; if it does, A is extraneous compute + using only the dependencies in F' = (F { }) { ( A)}, check that + contains A; if it does, A is extraneous To test if attribute A is extraneous in 1. 2. Example: Given F = {A C, AB C } Example: Given F = {A C, AB CD} Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.24 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Canonical Cover A canonical cover for F is a set of dependencies Fc such that F logically implies all dependencies in Fc, and Fc logically implies all dependencies in F, and No functional dependency in Fc contains an extraneous attribute, and Each left side of functional dependency in Fc is unique. F+ = Fc+ minimal To compute a canonical cover for F: repeat Use the union rule to replace any dependencies in F 1 1 and 1 2 with 1 1 2 Find a functional dependency with an extraneous attribute either in or in ; if found, delete it from 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, 5th Ed. 7.25 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Computing a Canonical Cover R = (A, B, C) F = {A BC BC AB AB C} Combine A BC and A B into A BC Set is now {A BC, B C, AB C} Check if the result of deleting A from AB C is implied by the other dependencies Yes: in fact, B C is already present! Set is now {A BC, B C} Check if A C is logically implied by A B and the other dependencies Yes: using transitivity on A B and B C. Can use attribute closure of A in more complex cases The canonical cover is: {A B, B C} 7.26 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. A is extraneous in AB C C is extraneous in A BC Goals of Normalization Let R be a relation scheme with a set F of functional dependencies. Decide whether a relation scheme R is in "good" form. In the case that a relation scheme R is not in "good" form, decompose it into a set of relation scheme {R1, R2, ..., Rn} such that each relation scheme is in good form the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition Preferably, the decomposition should be dependency preserving. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.27 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Lossless-join Decomposition For the case of R = (R1, R2), we require that 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 R1 R1 R2 R2 Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.28 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example R = (A, B, C) F = {A B, B C) Can be decomposed in two different ways Lossless-join decomposition: R1 R2 = {B} and B BC Dependency preserving Lossless-join decomposition: R1 R2 = {A} and A AB Not dependency preserving cannot check B C without computing R1 R2 R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C) R1 = (A, B), R2 = (A, C) Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.29 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Dependency Preservation Let Fi be the set of dependencies F+ that include only attributes in Ri. A decomposition is dependency preserving, if (F1 F2 ... Fn)+ = F+ If it is not, then checking updates for violation of functional dependencies may require computing joins, which is expensive. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.30 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Testing for Dependency Preservation To check if a dependency is preserved in a decomposition of R into R1, R2, ..., Rn we apply the following test (with attribute closure done w.r.t. to F) result = while (changes to result) do for each Ri in the decomposition t = (result Ri)+ Ri result = result t w.r.t F Essentially, calculate + in the decomposed schemas without explicitly calculating Fi If result contains all attributes in , then the functional dependency 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 (F1 F2 ... Fn)+ Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.31 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Normal Forms Returning to the issue of schema refinement, the first question 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 are avoided/minimized. This can be used to help us decide 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 A value, and if so, they all have the same B value! Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.32 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan First Normal Form Domain is atomic if its elements are considered to be indivisible units Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.33 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Second Normal Form R: Sales ( dept, item, price) FD: dept, item price; item price Anomalies? KEY dept item Nonfull functional dependency price A 2NF relation is a 1NF relation whose nonprime attributes are fully and functionally dependent on any of the keys Sales (dept, item) Iteminfo (item, price) Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Database System Concepts, Ed. 7.34 Third 5th Normal Form Iteminfo (item, price,discount) item price; price discount Anomalies? Relation R with FDs F is in 3NF if, for all X A in F + A X (called a trivial FD), or X contains a key for R, or A is a prime attribute of R (i.e., A is part of some key for R). KEY item price discount Transitive dependency Iteminfo (item, price) Discnt(price,discount) Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.35 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan What Does 3NF Achieve? If 3NF violated by X A, one of the following holds: X is a subset of some key K We store (X, A) pairs redundantly. There is a chain of FDs K X A, which means that we cannot associate an X value with a K value unless we also associate an A value with an X value. X is not a proper subset of any key. But: even if a relation is in 3NF, these problems could arise. e.g., Reserves(S, B, D, C), S C, C S is in 3NF, but for each reservation of sailor S, same (S, C) pair is stored. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.36 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Boyce-Codd Normal Form SalaryInfo(salary-bracket, status, bonus) Salary-bracket, status bonus; bonus status KEY Salarybracket status bonus . (( QQ JJ LL QQ HH HH UU . 0 D Q D J H U . .. 00 DD QQ DD JJ HH UU 7.37 .. . . . Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Boyce-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 where R and R, at least one of the following holds: is trivial (i.e., ) is a superkey for R Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.38 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example R = (A, B, C ) F = {A B B C} A+ = ABC The only key is A R is not in BCNF (because of B C) B+ = BC R is not in BCNF (because B is not a superkey) Decomposition R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C) R1 and R2 in BCNF Always! (Why?) Lossless-join decomposition Dependency preserving or Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.39 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Testing for BCNF To check if a non-trivial dependency causes a violation of BCNF 1. compute + (the attribute closure of ), 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 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+. 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 Consider R (A, B, C, D, E), with F = { A B, BC D} Not in BCNF (because of either FD) Decompose R into R1(A,B) and R2(A,C, D, E) Neither of the dependencies in F contain only attributes from (A,C,D,E) so we might be mislead into thinking R2 satisfies BCNF. In fact, dependency AC D in F+ shows R2 is not in BCNF. 7.40 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. Testing Decomposition for BCNF To check if a relation Ri in a decomposition of R is in BCNF, Either test Ri for BCNF with respect to the restriction (also called "projection") of F to Ri (that is, all FDs in F+ that contain only attributes from Ri) or use the original set of dependencies F that hold on R, but with the following test: for every subset of attributes Ri, check that + (the attribute closure of ) either includes no attribute of Ri- , or includes all attributes of Ri. If the condition is violated by some in F, the dependency (+ - ) Ri can be shown to hold on Ri, and Ri violates BCNF. We use above dependency to decompose Ri "bad" FD Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.41 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan BCNF Decomposition Algorithm result := {R}; done := false; compute F+; while (not done) do if (there is a schema Ri in result that is not in BCNF) then begin let be a nontrivial functional dependency that holds on Ri "bad" FD such that Ri is not in F+, and = ; ensure lossless-join result := (result Ri ) (Ri ) (, ); end else done := true; Note: each Ri is in BCNF, and decomposition is lossless-join. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.42 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example of BCNF Decomposition R = (A, B, C ) F = {A B B C} Key = {A} R is not in BCNF (B C but B is not a superkey) Decomposition R1 = (B, C) R2 = (A, B) i.e., won't choose A B for decomposition Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.43 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example of BCNF Decomposition Original relation R and functional dependency F 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 bad FD: branch-name assets branch-city R1 = (branch-name, branch-city, assets) R2 = (branch-name, customer-name, loan-number, amount) R21 = (branch-name, loan-number, amount) R22 = (customer-name, loan-number) bad FD: loan-number amount branch-name Final decomposition R1, R21, R22 Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.44 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan BCNF and Dependency Preservation It is not always possible to get a BCNF decomposition that is dependency preserving 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 This implies that testing for JK L requires a join Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.45 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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 (3NF) Allows some redundancy (with resultant problems; we will see examples later) But functional dependencies can be checked on individual relations without computing a join. There is always a lossless-join, dependency-preserving decomposition into 3NF. Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.46 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Third Normal Form A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if for all: in F+ at least one of the following holds: is trivial (i.e., ) is a superkey for R Each attribute A in 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). Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.47 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 3NF Example Relation R: R = (J, K, L) F = {JK L, L K} Two candidate keys: JK and JL R is in 3NF JK L LK JK is a superkey K is contained in a candidate key Equivalent to example in book: K L J Banker-schema = (branch-name, customer-name, banker-name) banker-name branch-name branch-name customer-name banker-name Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.48 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Redundancy in 3NF There is some redundancy in this schema Example of problems due to redundancy in 3NF R = (J, K, L) F = {JK L, L K} J j1 j2 j3 null L l1 l1 l1 l2 K k1 k1 k1 k2 repetition of information (e.g., the relationship l1, k1) need to use null values (e.g., to represent the relationship l2, k2 where there is no corresponding value for J). Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.49 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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 , if is a superkey. If 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 Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.50 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 3NF Decomposition/Synthesis Algorithm Let Fc be a canonical cover for F; i := 0; for each functional dependency in Fc do if none of the schemas Rj, 1 j i contains then begin i := i + 1; Ri := end if none of the schemas Rj, 1 j i contains a candidate key for R then begin i := i + 1; Ri := any candidate key for R; end return (R1, R2, ..., Ri) FD preserving help to ensure lossless-join Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.51 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 3NF Decomposition Algorithm (Cont.) Above algorithm ensures: each relation schema Ri is in 3NF decomposition is dependency preserving and lossless-join Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.52 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan 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} Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.53 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Example (cont'd) banker-name branch-name office-number Fc = F customer-name branch-name banker-name The for loop in the algorithm causes us to include the following schemas in our decomposition: R1 = (banker-name, branch-name, office-number) R2 = (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, 5th Ed. 7.54 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Comparison of BCNF and 3NF It is always possible to decompose a relation into a set of relations that are in 3NF such that: the decomposition is lossless the dependencies are preserved It is always possible to decompose a relation into a set of relations that are in BCNF such that: the decomposition is lossless it may not be possible to preserve dependencies Database System Concepts, 5th Ed. 7.55 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan Design Goals Goal for a relational database design is: BCNF. Lossless join. Dependency preservation. Lack of dependency preservation Redundancy due to use of 3NF If we cannot achieve this, we accept one of 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 ...

Find millions of documents on Course Hero - Study Guides, Lecture Notes, Reference Materials, Practice Exams and more. Course Hero has millions of course specific materials providing students with the best way to expand their education.

Below is a small sample set of documents:

Pittsburgh - AEI - 7720
. * *.ISSN 1012-2184u.IZ~.~o.IQ.FINANCIAL COOPERATION UNDER THE LOME CONVENTIONS> u.Iu.IoAID SITUATION AT THE END OF 1996EUROPEAN COMMISSIONIIiDE 92November 1997Financial cooperation under the Lome Conve
Pittsburgh - AEI - 6000
15-16
Allan Hancock College - CS - 3311
Example R = (A, B, C, D, E, G) F={ A -> C, AB -> C, C -> DG, CD -> G, CE -> AB, EG -> C }1. 2. 3. 4. all candidate keys highest normal form BCNF decomposition 3NF decomposionAll Candidate Keys R = (A, B, C, D, E, G) F={ A -> C, AB -> C, C -> D
Pittsburgh - AEI - 4234
Allan Hancock College - CS - 3311
Example R = (A, B, C, D, E, G) F={ A -> C, AB -> C, C -> DG, CD -> G, CE -> AB, EG -> C }1. 2. 3. 4. all candidate keys highest normal form BCNF decomposition 3NF decomposion All Candidate KeysR = (A, B, C, D, E, G) F={ A -> C, AB -> C, C -> D
Pittsburgh - AEI - 7499
Pittsburgh - AEI - 4903
Pittsburgh - AEI - 1452
THE EURO PEANCOUN CILMAD RID15- 16 DECEMBER 1995Documents in the dossier include:Madrid European Council Reproduced from the Bulletin ofthe European Communities , No. 12/1995Madrid European Council.Madrid, 15 and 16 December1.1.In this c
Pittsburgh - AEI - 3099
B ALANCING G LOBAL I NFLUENC EThe "transatlantic conflict syndrome" and the CFSPMaria Str mvikmaria.stromvik@svet.lu.seDepartment of Political Science Lund University Box 52 221 00 Lund, Sweden Ph. +46-(0)46-222 04 87Rough draft, comments are
Allan Hancock College - CS - 3311
Chapter 14: Query OptimizationDatabase System ConceptsSilberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-useChapter 14: Query OptimizationIntroduction Transformation of Relational Expressions (Cost-based optimization) (D
Allan Hancock College - CS - 3311
H IGHLIGHT: I NTRODUCTIONReview for COMP 3311 Wei WANG The University of New South WalesSlide 1 weiw@cse.unsw.edu.au Slide 3Knowledge (hopefully, better by now) Data model 3 levels of abstraction and 2 levels of independence DBMS Related lang
Allan Hancock College - CS - 3311
Advanced Database Courses @ CSECOMP9315: Database System Implementation COMP9318: Data Warehousing and Data Mining (new) COMP9314: Next Generation Databases COMP9321: e-Commerce Implementation InfrastructureCOMP9315: Database System Implem
Allan Hancock College - CS - 3311
Sample Solution of COMP3311 Assignment 2Q11 Non-trivial FDs in F + can be characterized by: (note that nobody can determine H other than itself; therefore, we do not need to consider any combination involving H; On the other hand, G cannot determi
Allan Hancock College - CS - 3311
%!PS-Adobe-3.0 %Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - tut1-ER.ppt %Creator: PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 %CreationDate: 3/21/2006 16:22:10 %For: DELL %BoundingBox: (atend) %Pages: (atend) %Orientation: Landscape %PageOrder: Ascend %DocumentNeededResources: (at
Allan Hancock College - CS - 3311
%!PS-Adobe-3.0 %Title: Microsoft PowerPoint - tut1-ER-pre.ppt %Creator: PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 %CreationDate: 3/12/2006 16:19:14 %For: DELL %BoundingBox: (atend) %Pages: (atend) %Orientation: Landscape %PageOrder: Ascend %DocumentNeededResources:
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
vonguck mal was die jungs da hinten tun und sag ihnen das will ich auch denn immer wieder wenn die jungs das tun dann wei ich was ich brauch ich geb dir ein geschenk mach es bitte auf bestell mir ein getrnk ich komm mal zu euch rauf oder kommt ihr z
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Allein Allein Video sehen He's living in a universe A heart away Inside of him there's no one else Just a heart away The time will come to be blessed A heart away To celebrate his loneliness Wir sind allein Allein allein Alle
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Erich Kstner als SoldatErich Kstner mit seiner MutterBcherverbrennung im Dritten ReichErich Kstner bei der ArbeitErich Kstner in spteren JahrenKatzenfreund Kstner
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Der gute Mann, ein guter Mann. Der gute Mann, ein guter Mann. Schlag den guten Mann nicht. Schlag einen guten Mann nicht. Schlag den guten Mann nicht. Der gute Mann, ein guter Mann. Der gute Mann, ein guter Mann. Schlag den guten Mann nicht. Gib dem
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
A, a, a, der Winter, der ist da! Herbst und Sommer sind vergangen, Winter, der hat angefangen, A, a, a, der Winter, der ist da!der Winter = winter vergehen = to go (away) anfangen = to startE, e, e, er bringt uns Eis und Schnee. Malt uns gar zum
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
DEUTSCHLAND von Die PrinzenDeutsch, deutsch, deutsch. Natrlich hat ein Deutscher "Wetten, dass"* erfunden Vielen Dank fr die schnen Stunden Wir sind die freundlichsten Kunden auf dieser Welt Wir sind bescheiden - wir haben Geld Die Allerbesten in je
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103
Mt. Holyoke - GERMAN - 103