Chapter Outline

Functional Dependencies (FDs)

– Definition of FD
– Inference Rules for FDs
– Equivalence of Sets of FDs
– Minimal Sets of FDs
 Chapter Outline
Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys
– Normalization of Relations
– Practical Use of Normal Forms
– Definitions of Keys and Attributes Participating in Keys
– First Normal Form
– Second Normal Form
– Third Normal Form

• General Normal Form Definitions (For Multiple Keys)

• BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form)

 Functional Dependencies
• Functional dependencies (FDs)
– Are used to specify formal measures of the
"goodness" of relational designs
– And keys are used to define normal forms for
relations
– Are constraints that are derived from the meaning
and interrelationships of the data attributes
• A set of attributes X functionally determines a
set of attributes Y if the value of X determines
a unique value for Y
 Functional Dependencies
• X -> Y holds if whenever two tuples have the same value for X,
they must have the same value for Y
– For any two tuples t1 and t2 in any relation instance r(R): If
t1[X]=t2[X], then t1[Y]=t2[Y]
• X -> Y in R specifies a constraint on all relation instances r(R)
• Written as X -> Y; can be displayed graphically on a relation
schema as in Figures. ( denoted by the arrow: ).
• FDs are derived from the real-world constraints on the
attributes
 Examples of FD constraints
• Social security number determines employee
name
– SSN -> ENAME
• Project number determines project name and
location
– PNUMBER -> {PNAME, PLOCATION}
• Employee ssn and project number determines
the hours per week that the employee works
on the project
– {SSN, PNUMBER} -> HOURS
 Examples of FD constraints
• An FD is a property of the attributes in the
schema R
• The constraint must hold on every relation
instance r(R)
• If K is a key of R, then K functionally
determines all attributes in R
– (since we never have two distinct tuples with
t1[K]=t2[K])
 Inference Rules for FDs
• Given a set of FDs F, we can infer additional FDs that hold
whenever the FDs in F hold
• Armstrong's inference rules:
– IR1. (Reflexive) If Y subset-of X, then X -> Y
– IR2. (Augmentation) If X -> Y, then XZ -> YZ
• (Notation: XZ stands for X U Z)
– IR3. (Transitive) If X -> Y and Y -> Z, then X -> Z

• IR1, IR2, IR3 form a sound and complete set of inference rules
– These are rules hold and all other rules that hold can be
deduced from these
 Inference Rules for FDs
• Some additional inference rules that are
useful:
– Decomposition: If X -> YZ, then X -> Y and X -> Z
– Union: If X -> Y and X -> Z, then X -> YZ
– Psuedotransitivity: If X -> Y and WY -> Z, then WX
-> Z

• The last three inference rules, as well as any

other inference rules, can be deduced from
IR1, IR2, and IR3 (completeness property)
 Inference Rules for FDs
• Closure of a set F of FDs is the set F+ of all FDs
that can be inferred from F

• Closure of a set of attributes X with respect to

F is the set X+ of all attributes that are
functionally determined by X

• X+ can be calculated by repeatedly applying

IR1, IR2, IR3 using the FDs in F
 Equivalence of Sets of FDs
• Two sets of FDs F and G are equivalent if:
– Every FD in F can be inferred from G, and
– Every FD in G can be inferred from F
– Hence, F and G are equivalent if F+ =G+
• Definition (Covers):
– F covers G if every FD in G can be inferred from F
• (i.e., if G+ subset-of F+)
• F and G are equivalent if F covers G and G covers F
• There is an algorithm for checking equivalence of sets of FDs
 Minimal Sets of FDs
• A set of FDs is minimal if it satisfies the
following conditions:
1. Every dependency in F has a single attribute for
its RHS.
2. We cannot remove any dependency from F and
have a set of dependencies that is equivalent to
F.
3. We cannot replace any dependency X -> A in F
with a dependency Y -> A, where Y proper-
subset-of X ( Y subset-of X) and still have a set of
dependencies that is equivalent to F.
 Minimal Sets of FDs
• Every set of FDs has an equivalent minimal set
• There can be several equivalent minimal sets
• There is no simple algorithm for computing a
minimal set of FDs that is equivalent to a set F
of FDs
• To synthesize a set of relations, we assume
that we start with a set of dependencies that
is a minimal set
– E.g., see algorithms 11.2 and 11.4
 Normalization of Relations
• Normalization:
– The process of decomposing unsatisfactory "bad"
relations by breaking up their attributes into
smaller relations

• Normal form:
– Condition using keys and FDs of a relation to
certify whether a relation schema is in a particular
normal form
 Normalization of Relations (2)
• 2NF, 3NF, BCNF
– based on keys and FDs of a relation schema
• 4NF
– based on keys, multi-valued dependencies :
MVDs; 5NF based on keys, join dependencies : JDs
(Chapter 11)
• Additional properties may be needed to
ensure a good relational design (lossless join,
dependency preservation; Chapter 11)
 3.2 Practical Use of Normal Forms
• Normalization is carried out in practice so that the resulting
designs are of high quality and meet the desirable properties

• The practical utility of these normal forms becomes

questionable when the constraints on which they are based
are hard to understand or to detect

• The database designers need not normalize to the highest

possible normal form
– (usually up to 3NF, BCNF or 4NF)

• Denormalization:
– The process of storing the join of higher normal form relations
as a base relation—which is in a lower normal form
 3.3 Definitions of Keys and Attributes
Participating in Keys (1)
• A superkey of a relation schema R = {A1, A2,
...., An} is a set of attributes S subset-of R with
the property that no two tuples t1 and t2 in
any legal relation state r of R will have t1[S] =
t2[S]

• A key K is a superkey with the additional

property that removal of any attribute from K
will cause K not to be a superkey any more.
 Definitions of Keys and Attributes
Participating in Keys (2)
• If a relation schema has more than one key, each
is called a candidate key.
– One of the candidate keys is arbitrarily designated to
be the primary key, and the others are called
secondary keys.
• A Prime attribute must be a member of some
candidate key
• A Nonprime attribute is not a prime attribute—
that is, it is not a member of any candidate key.
 First Normal Form
• Disallows
– composite attributes
– multivalued attributes
– nested relations; attributes whose values for an
individual tuple are non-atomic

• Considered to be part of the definition of

relation
Normalization into 1NF
Normalization nested relations into 1NF
 Second Normal Form
• Uses the concepts of FDs, primary key
• Definitions
– Prime attribute: An attribute that is member of the primary key
K
– Full functional dependency: a FD Y -> Z where removal of any
attribute from Y means the FD does not hold any more
• Examples:
– {SSN, PNUMBER} -> HOURS is a full FD since neither SSN ->
HOURS nor PNUMBER -> HOURS hold
– {SSN, PNUMBER} -> ENAME is not a full FD (it is called a partial
dependency ) since SSN -> ENAME also holds
 Second Normal Form
• A relation schema R is in second normal form
(2NF) if every non-prime attribute A in R is
fully functionally dependent on the primary
key

• R can be decomposed into 2NF relations via

the process of 2NF normalization
Normalizing into 2NF and 3NF
Normalization into 2NF and 3NF
 Third Normal Form
• Definition:
– Transitive functional dependency: a FD X -> Z
that can be derived from two FDs X -> Y and Y ->
Z
• Examples:
– SSN -> DMGRSSN is a transitive FD
• Since SSN -> DNUMBER and DNUMBER -> DMGRSSN
hold
– SSN -> ENAME is non-transitive
• Since there is no set of attributes X where SSN -> X and
X -> ENAME
 Third Normal Form
• A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if it is in 2NF
and no non-prime attribute A in R is transitively dependent on
the primary key
• R can be decomposed into 3NF relations via the process of
3NF normalization
• NOTE:
– In X -> Y and Y -> Z, with X as the primary key, we consider this a
problem only if Y is not a candidate key.
– When Y is a candidate key, there is no problem with the
transitive dependency .
– E.g., Consider EMP (SSN, Emp#, Salary ).
• Here, SSN -> Emp# -> Salary and Emp# is a candidate key.
 Normal Forms Defined Informally
• 1st normal form
– All attributes depend on the key
• 2nd normal form
– All attributes depend on the whole key
• 3rd normal form
– All attributes depend on nothing but the key
 General Normal Form Definitions (For Multiple
Keys)
• The above definitions consider the primary
key only
• The following more general definitions take
into account relations with multiple candidate
keys
• A relation schema R is in second normal form
(2NF) if every non-prime attribute A in R is
fully functionally dependent on every key of R
 General Normal Form Definitions
• Definition:
– Superkey of relation schema R - a set of attributes
S of R that contains a key of R
– A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF)
if whenever a FD X -> A holds in R, then either:
• (a) X is a superkey of R, or
• (b) A is a prime attribute of R
• NOTE: Boyce-Codd normal form disallows
condition (b) above
 BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form)
• A relation schema R is in Boyce-Codd Normal Form (BCNF) if
whenever an FD X -> A holds in R, then X is a superkey of R
• Each normal form is strictly stronger than the previous one
– Every 2NF relation is in 1NF
– Every 3NF relation is in 2NF
– Every BCNF relation is in 3NF
• There exist relations that are in 3NF but not in BCNF
• The goal is to have each relation in BCNF (or 3NF)
Boyce-Codd normal form
a relation TEACH that is in 3NF but not in BCNF
 Achieving the BCNF by Decomposition

• Two FDs exist in the relation TEACH:

– fd1: { student, course} -> instructor
– fd2: instructor -> course
• {student, course} is a candidate key for this relation and that
the dependencies shown follow the pattern .
• So this relation is in 3NF but not in BCNF
• A relation NOT in BCNF should be decomposed so as to meet
this property, while possibly forgoing the preservation of all
functional dependencies in the decomposed relations.
 Achieving the BCNF by Decomposition (2)

• Three possible decompositions for relation TEACH

– {student, instructor} and {student, course}
– {course, instructor } and {course, student}
– {instructor, course } and {instructor, student}
• All three decompositions will lose fd1.
– We have to settle for sacrificing the functional dependency
preservation. But we cannot sacrifice the non-additivity property after
decomposition.
• Out of the above three, only the 3rd decomposition will not generate
spurious tuples after join.(and hence has the non-additivity property).
• A test to determine whether a binary decomposition (decomposition into
two relations) is non-additive (lossless) is discussed in section 11.1.4 under
Property LJ1. Verify that the third decomposition above meets the
property.