Chapter 7: Normalization

Database System Concepts, 7th Ed.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
See www.db-book.com
www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use
 Outline

▪ Features of Good Relational Design

▪ Functional Dependencies
▪ Decomposition Using Functional Dependencies
▪ Normal Forms
▪ Functional Dependency Theory
▪ Algorithms for Decomposition using Functional Dependencies
▪ Decomposition Using Multivalued Dependencies
▪ More Normal Form
▪ Atomic Domains and First Normal Form
▪ Database-Design Process
▪ Modeling Temporal Data

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.2 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Overview of Normalization

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.3 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Features of Good Relational Designs

▪ Suppose we combine instructor and department into in_dep, which

represents the natural join on the relations instructor and department

▪ There is repetition of information

▪ Need to use null values (if we add a new department with no instructors)

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.4 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Decomposition

▪ The only way to avoid the repetition-of-information problem in the in_dep

schema is to decompose it into two schemas – instructor and department
schemas.
▪ Not all decompositions are good. Suppose we decompose

employee(ID, name, street, city, salary)

into
employee1 (ID, name)
employee2 (name, street, city, salary)

The problem arises when we have two employees with the same name
▪ The next slide shows how we lose information -- we cannot reconstruct
the original employee relation -- and so, this is a lossy decomposition.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.5 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 A Lossy Decomposition

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.6 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Lossless Decomposition

▪ Let R be a relation schema and let R1 and R2 form a decomposition of R .

That is R = R1 U R2
▪ We say that the decomposition is a lossless decomposition if there is
no loss of information by replacing R with the two relation schemas R1
U R2
▪ Formally,
 R1 (r)  R2 (r) = r
▪ And, conversely a decomposition is lossy if
r   R1 (r)  R2 (r) = r

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.7 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example of Lossless Decomposition

▪ Decomposition of R = (A, B, C)
R1 = (A, B) R2 = (B, C)

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.8 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Normalization Theory

▪ 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 set
of relations {R1, R2, ..., Rn} such that
• Each relation is in good form
• The decomposition is a lossless decomposition
▪ Our theory is based on:
• Functional dependencies
• Multivalued dependencies

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.9 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Functional Dependencies

▪ There are usually a variety of constraints (rules) on the data in the real
world.
▪ For example, some of the constraints that are expected to hold in a
university database are:
• Students and instructors are uniquely identified by their ID.
• Each student and instructor has only one name.
• Each instructor and student is (primarily) associated with only one
department.
• Each department has only one value for its budget, and only one
associated building.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.10 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Functional Dependencies (Cont.)

▪ An instance of a relation that satisfies all such real-world constraints is

called a legal instance of the relation;
▪ A legal instance of a database is one where all the relation instances are
legal instances
▪ 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 - 7th Edition 7.11 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Functional Dependencies Definition
▪ 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, B → A hold; A → B does NOT hold,

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.12 ©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.
• If A → B and B → C, then we can infer that A → C
• etc.
▪ The set of all functional dependencies logically implied by F is the
closure of F.
▪ We denote the closure of F by F+.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.13 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Keys and Functional Dependencies

▪ 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:
in_dep (ID, name, salary, dept_name, building, budget ).
We expect these functional dependencies to hold:
dept_name→ building
ID → building

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.14 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Use of Functional Dependencies

▪ We use functional dependencies to:

• 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.
• 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 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 instructor may, by chance, satisfy
name → ID.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.15 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Trivial Functional Dependencies

▪ A functional dependency is trivial if it is satisfied by all instances of a

relation
▪ Example:
• ID, name → ID
▪ In general,  →  is trivial if   

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.16 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Lossless Decomposition

▪ We can use functional dependencies to show when certain

decomposition are lossless.
▪ 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 decomposition if at least
one of the following dependencies is in F+:
• R1  R2 → R1
• R1  R2 → R2
▪ The above functional dependencies are a sufficient condition for lossless
join decomposition; the dependencies are a necessary condition only if all
constraints are functional dependencies

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.17 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example

▪ R = (A, B, C)
F = {A → B, B → C)
▪ R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
• Lossless decomposition:
R1  R2 = {B} and B → BC
▪ R1 = (A, B), R2 = (A, C)
• Lossless decomposition:
R1  R2 = {A} and A → AB
▪ Note:
• B → BC
is a shorthand notation for
• B → {B, C}

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.18 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Dependency Preservation

▪ Testing functional dependency constraints each time the database is

updated can be costly
▪ It is useful to design the database in a way that constraints can be
tested efficiently.
▪ If testing a functional dependency can be done by considering just one
relation, then the cost of testing this constraint is low
▪ When decomposing a relation it is possible that it is no longer possible
to do the testing without having to perform a Cartesian Product.
▪ A decomposition that makes it computationally hard to enforce
functional dependency is said to be NOT dependency preserving.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.19 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Dependency Preservation Example

▪ Consider a schema:
dept_advisor(s_ID, i_ID, department_name)
▪ With function dependencies:
i_ID → dept_name
s_ID, dept_name → i_ID
▪ In the above design we are forced to repeat the department name once
for each time an instructor participates in a dept_advisor relationship.
▪ To fix this, we need to decompose dept_advisor
▪ Any decomposition will not include all the attributes in
s_ID, dept_name → i_ID
▪ Thus, the composition NOT be dependency preserving

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.20 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Normal Forms

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.21 ©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 - 7th Edition 7.22 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Boyce-Codd Normal Form (Cont.)

▪ Example schema that is not in BCNF:

in_dep (ID, name, salary, dept_name, building, budget )
because :
• dept_name→ building, budget
▪ holds on in_dep
▪ but
• dept_name is not a superkey
▪ When decompose in_dept into instructor and department
• instructor is in BCNF
• department is in BCNF

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.23 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Decomposing a Schema into BCNF

▪ Let R be a schema R that is not in BCNF. Let  → be the FD that

causes a violation of BCNF.
▪ We decompose R into:
• ( U  )
• (R-(-))
▪ In our example of in_dep,
•  = dept_name
•  = building, budget
and in_dep is replaced by
• ( U  ) = ( dept_name, building, budget )
• ( R - (  -  ) ) = ( ID, name, dept_name, salary )

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.24 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.25 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 BCNF and Dependency Preservation

▪ It is not always possible to achieve both BCNF and dependency

preservation
▪ Consider a schema:
dept_advisor(s_ID, i_ID, department_name)
▪ With function dependencies:
i_ID → dept_name
s_ID, dept_name → i_ID
▪ dept_advisor is not in BCNF
• i_ID is not a superkey.
▪ Any decomposition of dept_advisor will not include all the attributes in
s_ID, dept_name → i_ID
▪ Thus, the composition is NOT be dependency preserving

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.26 ©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 - 7th Edition 7.27 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Example

▪ Consider a schema:
dept_advisor(s_ID, i_ID, dept_name)
▪ With function dependencies:
i_ID → dept_name
s_ID, dept_name → i_ID
▪ Two candidate keys = {s_ID, dept_name}, {s_ID, i_ID }
▪ We have seen before that dept_advisor is not in BCNF
▪ R, however, is in 3NF
• s_ID, dept_name is a candidate key
• i_ID → dept_name and i_ID is NOT a superkey, but:
▪ { dept_name} – {i_ID } = {dept_name } and
▪ dept_name is contained in a candidate key

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.28 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Redundancy in 3NF

▪ Consider the schema R below, which is in 3NF

• R = (J, K, L )
• F = {JK → L, L → K }
• And an instance table:

▪ What is wrong with the table?

• Repetition of information
• Need to use null values (e.g., to represent the relationship l2, k2
where there is no corresponding value for J)

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.29 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Comparison of BCNF and 3NF

▪ Advantages to 3NF over BCNF. It is always possible to obtain a 3NF

design without sacrificing losslessness or dependency preservation.
▪ Disadvantages to 3NF.
• We may have to use null values to represent some of the possible
meaningful relationships among data items.
• There is the problem of repetition of information.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.30 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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, need to
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 decomposition
• Preferably, the decomposition should be dependency preserving.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.31 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 How good is BCNF?

▪ There are database schemas in BCNF that do not seem to be

sufficiently normalized
▪ Consider a relation
inst_info (ID, child_name, phone)
• where an instructor may have more than one phone and can have
multiple children
• Instance of inst_info

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.32 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 How good is BCNF? (Cont.)

▪ There are no non-trivial functional dependencies and therefore the

relation is in BCNF
▪ Insertion anomalies – i.e., if we add a phone 981-992-3443 to 99999, we
need to add two tuples
(99999, David, 981-992-3443)
(99999, William, 981-992-3443)

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.33 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Higher Normal Forms

▪ It is better to decompose inst_info into:

• inst_child:

• inst_phone:

▪ This suggests the need for higher normal forms, such as Fourth
Normal Form (4NF), which we shall see later

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.34 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Functional-Dependency Theory

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.35 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Functional-Dependency Theory Roadmap

▪ We now consider the formal theory that tells us which functional

dependencies are implied logically by a given set of functional
dependencies.
▪ We then develop algorithms to generate lossless decompositions into
BCNF and 3NF
▪ We then develop algorithms to test if a decomposition is dependency-
preserving

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.36 ©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.
• If A → B and B → C, then we can infer that A → C
• etc.
▪ The set of all functional dependencies logically implied by F is the closure
of F.
▪ We denote the closure of F by F+.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.37 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Closure of a Set of Functional Dependencies

▪ We can compute F+, the closure of F, by repeatedly applying Armstrong’s

Axioms:
• Reflexive rule: if   , then  → 
• Augmentation rule: if  → , then   →  
• Transitivity rule: if  → , and  → , then  → 
▪ These rules are
• Sound -- generate only functional dependencies that actually hold,
and
• Complete -- generate all functional dependencies that hold.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.38 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example of F+

▪ 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
▪ by augmenting CG → I to infer CG → CGI,
and augmenting of CG → H to infer CGI → HI,
and then transitivity

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.39 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Closure of Functional Dependencies (Cont.)

▪ Additional rules:
• Union rule: If  →  holds and  →  holds, then  →   holds.
• Decomposition rule: If  →   holds, then  →  holds and  →
 holds.
• Pseudotransitivity rule:If  →  holds and   →  holds, then 
 →  holds.
▪ The above rules can be inferred from Armstrong’s axioms.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.40 ©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
▪ 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 - 7th Edition 7.42 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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? == Is R  (AG)+
2. Is any subset of AG a superkey?
1. Does A → R? == Is R  (A)+
2. Does G → R? == Is R  (G)+
3. In general: check for each subset of size n-1

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.43 ©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.
▪ Testing functional dependencies
• 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
▪ Computing closure of F
• For each   R, we find the closure +, and for each S  +, we output
a functional dependency  → S.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.44 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Canonical Cover

▪ Suppose that we have a set of functional dependencies F on a relation

schema. Whenever a user performs an update on the relation, the
database system must ensure that the update does not violate any
functional dependencies; that is, all the functional dependencies in F are
satisfied in the new database state.
▪ If an update violates any functional dependencies in the set F, the system
must roll back the update.
▪ We can reduce the effort spent in checking for violations by testing a
simplified set of functional dependencies that has the same closure as the
given set.
▪ This simplified set is termed the canonical cover
▪ To define canonical cover we must first define extraneous attributes.
• An attribute of a functional dependency in F is extraneous if we can
remove it without changing F +

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.45 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Extraneous Attributes

▪ Removing an attribute from the left side of a functional dependency could

make it a stronger constraint.
• For example, if we have AB → C and remove B, we get the possibly
stronger result A → C. It may be stronger because A → C logically
implies AB → C, but AB → C does not logically imply A → C
▪ But, depending on what our set F of functional dependencies happens to
be, we may be able to remove B from AB → C safely.
• For example, suppose that
• F = {AB → C, A → D, D → C}
• Then we can show that F logically implies A → C, making extraneous
in AB → C.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.46 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Extraneous Attributes (Cont.)

▪ Removing an attribute from the right side of a functional dependency

could make it a weaker constraint.
• For example, if we have AB → CD and remove C, we get the possibly
weaker result AB → D. It may be weaker because using just AB → D,
we can no longer infer AB → C.
▪ But, depending on what our set F of functional dependencies happens to
be, we may be able to remove C from AB → CD safely.
• For example, suppose that
F = { AB → CD, A → C}
• Then we can show that even after replacing AB → CD by AB → D, we
can still infer $AB → C and thus AB → CD.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.47 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Extraneous Attributes

▪ An attribute of a functional dependency in F is extraneous if we can

remove it without changing F +
▪ Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional
dependency  →  in F.
• Remove from the left side: Attribute A is extraneous in  if
▪ A   and
▪ F logically implies (F – { → })  {( – A) → }.
• Remove from the right side: Attribute A is extraneous in  if
▪ A   and
▪ The set of functional dependencies
(F – { → })  { →( – A)} logically implies F.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.48 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Examples of Extraneous Attributes

▪ Let F = {AB → CD, A → E, E → C }

▪ To check if C is extraneous in AB → CD, we:
• Compute the attribute closure of AB under F = {AB → D, A → E, E →
C}
• The closure is ABCDE, which includes CD
• This implies that C is extraneous

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.50 ©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. That is, there
are no two dependencies in Fc
• 1 → 1 and 2 → 2 such that
• 1 = 2

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.51 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example: 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
• 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}
▪ C is extraneous in A → BC
• 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

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.53 ©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 +
▪ Using the above definition, testing for dependency preservation take
exponential time.
▪ Not that if a decomposition is NOT dependency preserving then checking
updates for violation of functional dependencies may require computing
joins, which is expensive.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.54 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.57 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example of BCNF Decomposition

▪ class (course_id, title, dept_name, credits, sec_id, semester, year,

building, room_number, capacity, time_slot_id)
▪ Functional dependencies:
• course_id→ title, dept_name, credits
• building, room_number→capacity
• course_id, sec_id, semester, year→building, room_number,
time_slot_id
▪ A candidate key {course_id, sec_id, semester, year}.
▪ BCNF Decomposition:
• course_id→ title, dept_name, credits holds
▪ but course_id is not a superkey.
• We replace class by:
▪ course(course_id, title, dept_name, credits)
▪ class-1 (course_id, sec_id, semester, year, building,
room_number, capacity, time_slot_id)

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.62 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 BCNF Decomposition (Cont.)

▪ course is in BCNF
• How do we know this?
▪ building, room_number→capacity holds on class-1
• but {building, room_number} is not a superkey for class-1.
• We replace class-1 by:
▪ classroom (building, room_number, capacity)
▪ section (course_id, sec_id, semester, year, building,
room_number, time_slot_id)
▪ classroom and section are in BCNF.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.63 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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 (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 - 7th Edition 7.64 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Example -- Relation dept_advisor

▪ dept_advisor (s_ID, i_ID, dept_name)

F = {s_ID, dept_name → i_ID, i_ID → dept_name}
▪ Two candidate keys: s_ID, dept_name, and i_ID, s_ID
▪ R is in 3NF
• s_ID, dept_name → i_ID s_ID
▪ dept_name is a superkey
• i_ID → dept_name
▪ dept_name is contained in a candidate key

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.65 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Decomposition: An Example

▪ Relation schema:
cust_banker_branch = (customer_id, employee_id, branch_name, type )
▪ The functional dependencies for this relation schema are:
• customer_id, employee_id → branch_name, type
• employee_id → branch_name
• customer_id, branch_name → employee_id
▪ We first compute a canonical cover
• branch_name is extraneous in the r.h.s. of the 1st dependency
• No other attribute is extraneous, so we get FC =
customer_id, employee_id → type
employee_id → branch_name
customer_id, branch_name → employee_id

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.69 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Decompsition Example (Cont.)

▪ Then we generate following 3NF schema:

(customer_id, employee_id, type )
(employee_id, branch_name)
(customer_id, branch_name, employee_id)
• Observe that (customer_id, employee_id, type ) contains a candidate
key of the original schema, so no further relation schema needs be
added
▪ At end of for loop, detect and delete schemas, such as (employee_id,
branch_name), which are subsets of other schemas
• result will not depend on the order in which FDs are considered
▪ The resultant simplified 3NF schema is:
(customer_id, employee_id, type)
(customer_id, branch_name, employee_id)

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.70 ©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 - 7th Edition 7.71 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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, (and
currently not supported by any of the widely used databases!)
▪ 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.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.72 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Multivalued Dependencies

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.73 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Multivalued Dependencies (MVDs)

▪ Suppose we record names of children, and phone numbers for

instructors:
• inst_child(ID, child_name)
• inst_phone(ID, phone_number)
▪ If we were to combine these schemas to get
• inst_info(ID, child_name, phone_number)
• Example data:
(99999, David, 512-555-1234)
(99999, David, 512-555-4321)
(99999, William, 512-555-1234)
(99999, William, 512-555-4321)
▪ This relation is in BCNF
• Why?

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.74 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Multivalued Dependencies

▪ Let R be a relation schema and let   R and   R. The multivalued

dependency
 →→ 
holds on R if in any legal relation r(R), for all pairs for tuples t1 and t2 in r
such that t1[] = t2 [], there exist tuples t3 and t4 in r such that:
t1[] = t2 [] = t3 [] = t4 []
t3[] = t1 []
t3[R – ] = t2[R – ]
t4 [] = t2[]
t4[R – ] = t1[R – ]

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.75 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 MVD (Cont.)

▪ 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 )
< y1, z1, w1 >  r and < y1, z2, w2 >  r
then
< y1, z1, w2 >  r and < y1, z2, w1 >  r
▪ Note that since the behavior of Z and W are identical it follows that
Y →→ Z if Y →→ W

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.77 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example

▪ In our example:
ID →→ child_name
ID →→ phone_number
▪ The above formal definition is supposed to formalize the notion that given
a particular value of Y (ID) it has associated with it a set of values of Z
(child_name) and a set of values of W (phone_number), 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) Z1 = Z2
The claim follows.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.78 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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 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.

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.79 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Theory of MVDs

▪ From the definition of multivalued dependency, we can derive the

following rule:
• If  → , then  →→ 
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

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.80 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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  →→ , where   R and   R, at least one of the following hold:
•  →→  is trivial (i.e.,    or    = R)
•  is a superkey for schema R
▪ If a relation is in 4NF it is in BCNF

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.81 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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) R1 = (A, B) (R1 is in 4NF)
b) R2 = (A, C, G, H, I) (R2 is not in 4NF, decompose into R3 and R4)
c) R3 = (C, G, H) (R3 is in 4NF)
d) R4 = (A, C, G, I) (R4 is not in 4NF, decompose into R5 and R6)
• A →→ B and B →→ HI ➔ A →→ HI, (MVD transitivity), and
• and hence A →→ I (MVD restriction to R4)
e) R5 = (A, I) (R5 is in 4NF)
f)R6 = (A, C, G) (R6 is in 4NF)

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.84 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Modeling Temporal Data

▪ Temporal data have an association time interval during which the data
are valid.
▪ A snapshot is the value of the data at a particular point in time
▪ Several proposals to extend ER model by adding valid time to
• attributes, e.g., address of an instructor at different points in time
• entities, e.g., time duration when a student entity exists
• relationships, e.g., time during which an instructor was associated with
a student as an advisor.
▪ But no accepted standard
▪ Adding a temporal component results in functional dependencies like
ID → street, city
not holding, because the address varies over time
▪ A temporal functional dependency X → Y holds on schema R if the
functional dependency X → Y holds on all snapshots for all legal instances
r (R).

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.91 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Modeling Temporal Data (Cont.)

▪ In practice, database designers may add start and end time attributes to
relations
• E.g., course(course_id, course_title) is replaced by
course(course_id, course_title, start, end)
• Constraint: no two tuples can have overlapping valid times
▪ Hard to enforce efficiently
▪ Foreign key references may be to current version of data, or to data at a
point in time
• E.g., student transcript should refer to course information at the time
the course was taken

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.92 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 End of Chapter 7

Database System Concepts - 7th Edition 7.93 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan