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. Instead of a separate relation depositor set of accounts
stored with each customer, and set of owners stored with each
account
In this chapter, we assume all relations are in first normal form
First Normal Form (Cont.)
Atomicity is actually a property of how the elements of the domain
are used.
Strings would normally be considered indivisible
But 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.
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, difficult to handle.
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
Our theory is based on:
functional dependencies
multivalued dependencies
Functional Dependencies
A key role in differentiating good database designs from bad
database designs.
A functional dependency is a generalization of the notion of a
key.
FDs are 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.
Functional Dependencies (Cont.)
Let R be a relation schema
R and R
The functional dependency
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.
1 4
1 5
3 7
On this instance, A B does NOT hold, but B A does hold.
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
FDs allow us to express constraints that cannot be expressed using
superkeys.
Consider the schema:
Loan-info-schema = (customer-name, loan-number,
branch-name, amount).
The set of functional dependencies that we expect to hold:
loan-number amount
loan-number branch-name
but would not expect the following to hold:
loan-number customer-name
(e.g. a loan - husband-wife pair)
Use of Functional Dependencies
We shall use FDs in two ways
To test relations to see whether 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.
To 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 F.
Note
A specific instance of a relation schema may satisfy a FD even if the FD
does not hold on all legal instances.
E.g. a specific instance of Loan-schema may, by chance, satisfy
loan-number customer-name.
Functional Dependencies (Cont.)
Some functional dependency are said to be trivial if they are
satisfied by all relations.
E.g.
customer-name, loan-number customer-name
customer-name customer-name
In general, a FD is trivial if
Closure of a Set of Functional
Dependencies
Given a set F of FDs, we can prove that certain other FDs hold.
We say that such FDs are “logically implied” by F.
E.g. If A B and B C, then we can infer that A C
The set of all FDs 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 (reflexivity)
If , then (augmentation)
If , and , then (transitivity)
sound and complete
Rules from Armstrong’s axioms:
If and , then (union rule)
If , then and (decomposition rule)
If and δ, then δ (pseudotransitivity rule)
Example
R = (A, B, C, G, H, I)
F={ AB
AC
CG H
CG I
BH }
Some members of F+
AH
By transitivity from A B and B H
AG I
Pseudotransitivity rule from A C and CG I
By augmenting A C with G, to get AG CG and then transitivity
with CG I
CG HI
Union rule from CG H and CG I
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 F:
F+ = F
repeat
for each FD f in F+
apply reflexivity and augmentation rules on f
add the resulting FDs to F+
for each pair of FDs f1and f2 in F+
if f1 and f2 can be combined using transitivity
then add the resulting FD to F+
until F+ does not change any further
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:
is in F +
Algorithm to compute +
result := ;
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={AB
AC
CG H
CG I
BH}
(AG)+
1. result = AG
2. result = ABCG (A C and A B)
3. result = ABCGH (CG H and CG ABCG)
4. result = ABCGHI (CG I and CG ABCGH)
Uses of Attribute Closure
Testing for superkey
To test if is a superkey, we compute +, and check if + contains all
attributes of R.
Testing functional dependencies
To check if a FD holds (in other words, is in F+), just check if
+.
That is, we compute + by using attribute closure, and then check if
it contains .
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 FDs may have redundant dependencies that can be
inferred from the others
E.g. A C is redundant in {A B, B C, A C}
Parts of a functional dependency may be redundant
E.g. {A B, B C, A CD} 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 and the FD in F
If A , to check attribute A is extraneous
let = -{A}, and check if can be inferred from F.
(compute + under F, check if + includes all attributes in )
If A , to check attribute A is extraneous
consider F’ = (F – { }) { ( – A)} and check if A can
be inferred from F’.
(compute + under F’, check if + includes A)
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 AB C can be inferred even after deleting C
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.
To compute a canonical cover for F:
Fc=F
repeat
Use the union rule to replace any dependencies in Fc
1 1 and 1 2 with 1 1 2
Find a functional dependency with an
extraneous attribute either in or in
If an extraneous attribute is found, delete it from
until Fc does not change
Example
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}
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:
AB
BC
Note: canonical cover might not be unique.
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 = R 1 R2
Lossless-join decomposition.
For all possible relations r on schema R
r = R1 (r) R2 (r)
A decomposition of R into R and R is lossless join if and only if
1 2
at least one of the following dependencies is in F+:
R1 R2 R1
R1 R2 R2
Normalization Using Functional Dependencies
When we decompose a relation schema R with a set of
F into R1, R2,.., Rn we want
Lossless-join decomposition: Otherwise decomposition would result in
information loss.
No redundancy: The relations Ri preferably should be in either Boyce-
Codd Normal Form or Third Normal Form.
Dependency preservation: Let Fi be the set of dependencies F+ that
include only attributes in Ri.
Preferably the decomposition should be dependency preserving,
that is, (F1 F2 … Fn)+ = 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)
R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
Lossless-join decomposition:
R1 R2 = {B} and B BC
Dependency preserving
R1 = (A, B), R2 = (A, C)
Lossless-join decomposition:
R1 R2 = {A} and A AB
Not dependency preserving
(cannot check B C without computing R1 R2)
Boyce-Codd Normal Form
A relation schema R is in BCNF with respect to a set F of FDs
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
Example
R = (A, B, C)
F = {A B
B C}
Key = {A}
R is not in BCNF
Decomposition R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
R1 and R2 in BCNF
Lossless-join decomposition
Dependency preserving
Third Normal Form
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
But, FDs can be checked on individual relations without computing a
join.
There is always a lossless-join, dependency-preserving decomposition
into 3NF.
3NF (Cont.)
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.
Third condition is a minimal relaxation of BCNF to ensure
dependency preservation
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
LK K is contained in a candidate key
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