[Www.pkbulk.blogspot.com]dbms09

Functional Dependencies
1
Fall 2001 Database Systems 1
Design Process - Where are we?
Conceptual
Design
Conceptual
Schema
(ER Model)
Logical
Design
Logical Schema
(Relational Model)
Step 1: ER-to-Relational
Mapping
Step 2: Normalization:
“Improving” the design
• Relations should have semantic unity
• Information repetition should be avoided
– Anomalies: insertion, deletion, modification
• Avoid null values as much as possible
– Difficulties with interpretation
• don’t know, don’t care, known but unavailable, does not
apply
– Specification of joins
• Avoid spurious joins
Relational Design Principles

2
Normalization
• A bad database design may suffer from anomalies that
make the database difficult to use:
COMPANIES(company_name, company_address,
date_founded, owner_name,
owner_title, #shares )
• Anomalies:
– update anomaly occurs if changing the value of an attribute
leads to an inconsistent database state.
– insertion anomaly occurs if we cannot insert a tuple due to some
design flaw.
– deletion anomaly occurs if deleting a tuple results in unexpected
loss of information.
• Normalization is the systematic process for removing all
such anomalies in database design.
Update Anomaly
• If a company has three owners, there are three tuples in
the COMPANIES relation for this company
• If this company moves to a new location, the company’s
address must be updated consistently in all three tuples
– updating the company address in just one or two of the tuples
creates an inconsistent database state
• It would be better if the company name and address
were in a separate relation so that the address of each
company appears in only one tuple

3
Insert Anomaly
• Suppose that three people have just created a new
company:
– the three founders have no titles yet
– stock distributions have yet to be defined
• The new company cannot be added to the COMPANIES
relation because there is not enough information to fill in
all the attributes of a tuple
– at best, null values can be used to complete a tuple
• It would be better if owner and stock information was
stored in a different relation
Delete Anomaly
• Suppose that an owner of a company retires so is no
longer an owner but retains stock in the company
• If this person’s tuple is deleted from the COMPANIES
relation, then we lose the information about how much
stock the person still owns
• If the stock information was stored in a different relation,
then we can retain this information after the person is
deleted as an owner of the company

4
What to do?
• Take each relation individually and “improve” it in terms
of the desired characteristics
– Normal forms
• Atomic values (1NF)
• Can be defined according to keys and dependencies.
• Functional Dependencies ( 2NF, 3NF, BCNF)
• Multivalued dependencies (4NF)
– Normalization
• Normalization is a process of concept separation which applies a
top-down methodology for producing a schema by subsequent
refinements and decompositions.
• Do not combine unrelated sets of facts in one table; each relation
should contain an independent set of facts.
• Universal relation assumption
• 1NF to 3NF; 1NF to BCNF
Normalization Issues
• How do we decompose a schema into a desirable normal form?
• What criteria should the decomposed schemas follow in order to
preserve the semantics of the original schema?
– Reconstructability: recover the original relation

no spurious joins
– Lossless decomposition: no information loss
– Dependency preservation: the constraints (i.e., dependencies) that hold
on the original relation should be enforceable by means of the
constraints (i.e., dependencies) defined on the decomposed relations.
• What happens to queries?
– Processing time may increase due to joins
– Denormalization

5
Keys in the relational model
• Superkey
– A set of one or more attributes, which, taken collectively, allow
us to identify uniquely a tuple in a relation.
– Let R be a relation scheme. A subset K of R is a superkey of R if,
in any legal relation [instance] r of R, for all pairs t1 and t2 of
tuples in r such that t1[K] = t2[K]

t1 = t2.
• Candidate key
– A superkey for which no proper subset is a superkey.
• Primary key
– The candidate key that is chosen by the database designer as
the principle key.
• A functional dependency is a constraint
between two sets of attributes in a relational
database.
• If X and Y are two sets of attributes in the same
relation T, then X → Y means that X functionally
determines Y so that
– the values of the attributes in X uniquely determine
the values of the attributes in Y
– for any two tuples t1 and t2 in T, t1[X] = t2[X] implies
that t1[Y] = t2[Y]
– if two tuples in T agree in their X column(s), then their
Y column(s) should also be the same.

6
• Dependencies for
this relation:
– A → B
– A → D
– B,C → E,F
• Do they all hold in
this instance of
the relation R?
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦
§©¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
§©¨ ¨ ¨ !
§© ¨ !
§ !
§© ¨ ! ! #
§$ ¨ ¨ % ¨ ¨
• Functional dependencies are specified by the database
programmer based on the intended meaning of the
attributes.
• What are the functional dependencies in:
company_name → company_address
company_name → date_founded
company_name, owner_id → owner_title
company_name, owner_id → #shares
company_name, owner_title → owner_id
owner_id → owner_name

7
Armstrong’s Axioms
• Armstrong’s Axioms: Let X, Y be sets of attributes
from a relation T.
[1] Inclusion rule: If Y⊆ X, then X → Y.
[2] Transitivity rule: If X → Y, and Y → Z, then X → Z.
[3] Augmentation rule: If X → Y, then XZ → YZ.
• Other derived rules:
[1] Union rule: If X → Y and X → Z, then X → YZ
[2] Decomposition rule: If X → YZ, then X → Y and X → Z
[3] Pseudotransitivity: If X → Y and WY → Z, then XW → Z
[4] Accumulation rule: If X → YZ and Z → BW,
then X → YZB
Closure
• Let F be a set of functional dependencies.
• We say F implies a functional dependency g if g
can be derived from the FDs in F using the
axioms.
• The closure of F, written as F+, is the set of all
FDs that are implied by F.
• Example: Given FDs { A → BC, C → D, AD → B },
what is the closure?
The closure is:
{ A → BC, C → D, AD → B, A → D }

8
Cover and Minimal Cover
• A set F of functional dependencies is said to cover
another set G of function dependencies iff G ⊆ F+.
– in other words, all dependencies in G can be derived from the
dependencies in F.
– if both F covers G, and G covers F then F and G are said to be
equivalent, written as F ≡ G.
– Given F = { A → BC, C → D, AD → B }
G = {A → B, C → D }
Does F cover G? Does G cover F?
• A minimal cover for a set F of functional dependencies is
a minimal set M that covers F.
Closure of a set of attributes
• Given a set of F of functional dependencies, the
closure of a set of attributes X, denoted by X+ is
the largest set of attributes Y such that X → Y.
Algorithm Closure(X,F)
X[0] = X; I = 0;
repeat
I = I + 1;
X[I] = X[I-1];
FOR ALL Z → W in F
IF Z ⊆ X[I] THEN X[I] = X[I] ∪ W
END FOR
until X[I] = X[I-1];
RETURN X+ = X[I]

9
Minimal Cover Algorithm
• Given a set F of functional dependencies,
find a minimal cover M for F.
– Step 1. Decompose all FDs of the form X →
a1…an to a set of functional dependencies with
a single attribute on the right side, i.e. X → a1, …
, X → an
– Step 2. Remove all inessential FDs from F
for all X → A in F
find H = F - { X → A }
If A ⊆ X+ in H, then remove X → A
end for
– Step 3. For all FDs, try to remove attributes from the
left hand side as long as the result does not change
F+.
for all X → A in F
let Y = X - {b} for some attribute b
let G = (F - {X → A}) ∪ {Y → A}
if Y+ under G is equal to Y+ under F then
set F = G (I.e. remove b from the given
FD)
end for
– Step 4. Gather all FDs with the same left hand side
using the union rule

10
Minimal Cover Exercise
• Compute the minimal cover of the following set
of functional dependencies:
{ ABC → DE, BD → DE, E → CF, EG → F }
The minimal cover is:
{ ABC → D, BD → E, E → CF }
Lossless Decomposition
• Given a table T, a lossless decomposition of T
inko k tables is a set of tables {T1,T2,…,Tk} such
that
– head(T) = head(T1) ∪ head(T2) ∪ … ∪ head(Tk)
i.e., the decomposed tables contain all attributes from the
original table
– each Ti contains the table T projected onto columns
head(Ti)
– lossless condition: T = T1
¡£¢ T2
¡£¢ …
¡£¢ Tk
i.e., the decomposed tables will contain the same
information as T, no more and no less

11
¡ ¢ £ ¤
¥§¦ ¨©¦ ¦ ¦
¥§¦ ¨©¦ ¦
¥§ ¨©¦ ©
¥ ¨©
¥ ¨©¦ ¦ ¦
! # $
%' (
%') (
%§0 ()
%21 (
354 6 7 8
9©@ A@ B@
9©@ AC B@
9©@ AC B©D
9©C AD BE
F5GIH5PRQTS U V W X
Y` a§` b` c©`
Y` a§` b2d c©`
Y` a§` b2d c'e
Yd a§` b` c©`
Yd a§` b2d c©`
Yd a§` b2d c'e
Ye ad b2e cf
Ygf a§` b` c©`
Ygf a§` b2d c©`
Ygf a§` b2d c'e
{R1, R2} is not a
lossless decompostion
of relation R.
The first and second
parts of the definition
are satisfied, but not
the third part.
Lossless Decompositions
• Given a table T and a set of attributes X ⊆ head(T) the
following statements are equivalent:
– X is a superkey of T
– X → head(T)
– X functionally determines all attributes in T
– X+ = head(T)
• Given a table T with a set F of functional dependencies
valid on T, a decomposition of T into tables {T1,T2} is a
lossless decomposition if one of the following
decompositions is implied by F:
(1) head(T1) ∩ head(T2) → head(T1)
(2) head(T1) ∩ head(T2) → head(T2)
i.e., the attributes in common between the two tables
determine all attributes in one of the new tables

12
Lossless Decompositions
• Let head(T) = {A,B,C,D,E,F} with functional
dependencies:
– AB → CD
– AE → D
– C → F
• Which of the following are lossless decompositions?
head(T1) = {A, B, C} head(T2) = {C, D, E, F}
head(T1) = {A, B, C, F} head(T2) = {A, B, D, E}
{A, B, C} ∩ {C, D, E, F} = {C}
But, {C} → {A, B, C} and {C} → {C, D, E, F}
{A, B, C, F} ∩ {A, B, D, E} = {A, B}
{A, B} → {A, B, C} = head(T1), so this is lossless
Preserving Functional Dependencies
• Given a table T and a set of functional
dependencies F, let {T1,T2,…,Tk} be a
decomposition of T
– A functional dependency X → Y in F is said to be
preserved in this decomposition if there exists a table Ti
such that X ∪ Y ⊆ head(Ti).
– In this case, we say that X → Y lies in Ti.
• A decomposition is functional dependency
preserving if all dependencies in (the minimal
cover of) F are preserved.

13
Preserving Functional Dependencies
• Given {AB → CD, AE → D, C → F}, which dependencies
are preserved by the following decompositions?
head(T1) = {A, B, C} head(T2) = {C, D, E, F}
head(T1) = {A, B, C, F} head(T2) = {A, B, D, E}
AB → C C → F
Not functional dependency preserving
AB → C AB → D
C → F AE → D
Functional dependency preserving
Boyce-Codd Normal Form
• A table T is said to be in Boyce-Codd Normal Form
(BCNF) with respect to a given set of functional
dependencies F if for all functional dependencies of the
form X → A implied by F the following is true:
If A is a single attribute that is not in X then X is a superkey.
Alternately,
If A is a single attribute that is not in X then X contains all
the attributes in a key.
• Given {AB → C, AB → D, AE → D, C → F} with Key:
{A,B,E}
– not in BCNF since C is a single attribute not in AB, but AB is not
a superkey.

14
Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Given head(T)={A,B,C,D,E,F} with functional
dependencies
{AC → D, AC → E, AF → B, AD → F, BC → A, ABC →
F } and keys: {A, C}, {B, C}, is this relation T in
BCNF?
No. It is sufficient to find one violation!
– AF → B violates BCNF since B is not in AF
and AF is not a superkey.
– AD → F violates BCNF since F is not in AD
and AD is not a superkey.
Note: ABC → F does not violate BCNF since
ABC is a superkey.
Normalization
• Given a table T that is not in BCNF, we want to find a
lossless and dependency preserving decomposition for T
such that all sub-tables are in BCNF
Company( company_name, company_address,
date_founded, owner_id, owner_name,
Functional dependencies
company_name → company_address, date_founded
company_name, owner_id → owner_title, #shares
Keys: {company_name, owner_id}
{company_name, owner_title}
Is it in BCNF?

15
Normalization
Company1(company_name, company_address,
date_founded, owner_id, owner_title, #shares)
company_name → company_address, date_founded
company_name, owner_id → owner_title, #shares
Company2(owner_id, owner_name)
Further decompose Company1:
Company11(company_name, company_address, date_founded)
Company12(company_name, owner_id, owner_title, #shares)
Are all the resulting relations in BCNF?
BCNF
• It is not always possible to find a lossless and
dependency preserving decomposition of a relation that
is in BCNF.
• Given: Address(Street, City, State, Zip)
Street, City, State → Zip
Zip → City, State
Keys: {Street, City, State} {Street, Zip}
It is not in BCNF since Zip → City, but {Zip} is not a
superkey.
But, we cannot decompose further, since if we have
Address1(Street, City, State)
Address2(City, Zip)
we loose the functional dependency Street, City, State
→ Zip
• It is not always desirable to normalize relations too far!

16
Third Normal Form
• A table T is said to be in third normal form (3NF) with
respect to a given set of functional dependencies F if for
all functional dependencies of the form X → A implied by
F, if A is a single attribute that is not in X, then one of the
following holds:
– X is a superkey for T
– the attribute A is in one of the keys for T
• If a table is BCNF, then it is in third normal form. But,
there are relations that are in 3NF that are not in BCNF.
– Example: The Address relation is 3NF, but not BCNF.
Address(Street, City, State, Zip)
Street, City, State → Zip
Zip → City, State
Algorithm for 3NF Decomposition
Given a table T and a set of functional dependencies F
replace F with minimal cover of F
S = { }
for all X → Y in F
if no table Z in S contains all attributes in X ∪ Y then
S = S ∪ head(X ∪ Y) /* create a table containing
attributes in X ∪ Y */
end-for
for all candidate keys K for T
if no table Z in S contains all attributes in K then
S = S ∪ head(K) /* create a new table with
attributes in K*/
end for

17
Exercise
• Given relation T, with head(T)={A,B,C,D,E,F} and
functional dependencies {AE → DF, BE → F, B → A, AD
→ C}, compute a decomposition that is in 3NF.
A 3NF decomposition is:
head(T1) = {A, E, D}
head(T2) = {A, E, F}
head(T3) = {B, A}
head(T4) = {A, D, C}
head(T5) = {B, E}

[Www.pkbulk.blogspot.com]dbms09

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie [Www.pkbulk.blogspot.com]dbms09

Ähnlich wie [Www.pkbulk.blogspot.com]dbms09 (20)

Mehr von AnusAhmad

Mehr von AnusAhmad (15)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

[Www.pkbulk.blogspot.com]dbms09