Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B.

Navathe
 CHAPTER 14

Basics of Functional Dependencies

and Normalization for Relational
Databases

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 2

Chapter Outline
◼ 1 Informal Design Guidelines for Relational Databases
◼ 1.1 Semantics of the Relation Attributes
◼ 1.2 Redundant Information in Tuples and Update Anomalies
◼ 1.3 Null Values in Tuples
◼ 1.4 Spurious Tuples

◼ 2 Functional Dependencies (FDs)

◼ 2.1 Definition of Functional Dependency

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 3

Chapter Outline
◼ 3 Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys
◼ 3.1 Normalization of Relations
◼ 3.2 Practical Use of Normal Forms
◼ 3.3 Definitions of Keys and Attributes Participating in Keys
◼ 3.4 First Normal Form
◼ 3.5 Second Normal Form
◼ 3.6 Third Normal Form
◼ 4 General Normal Form Definitions for 2NF and 3NF (For
Multiple Candidate Keys)
◼ 5 BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form)
◼ 6 Multivalued Dependency and Fourth Normal Form
◼ 7 Join Dependencies and Fifth Normal Form
Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 4
1. Informal Design Guidelines for Relational Databases (1)

◼ What is relational database design?

◼ The grouping of attributes to form "good" relation
schemas
◼ Two levels of relation schemas
◼ The logical "user view" level
◼ The storage "base relation" level
◼ Design is concerned mainly with base relations
◼ What are the criteria for "good" base relations?

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 5

1. Informal Design Guidelines for Relational Databases (2)

◼ We first discuss informal guidelines for good relational design

◼ Then we discuss formal concepts of functional dependencies

(FDs) and normal forms (NFs)
◼ - 1NF (First Normal Form)

◼ - 2NF (Second Normal Form)

◼ - 3NF (Third Normal Form)

◼ - BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form)

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 6

1.1 Semantics of the Relational Attributes must be clear

◼ GUIDELINE 1: Informally, each tuple in a relation should

represent one entity or relationship instance. (Applies to
individual relations and their attributes).
◼ Attributes of different entities (EMPLOYEEs, DEPARTMENTs,
PROJECTs) should not be mixed in the same relation
◼ Only foreign keys should be used to refer to other entities
◼ Entity and relationship attributes should be kept apart as much
as possible.

◼ Bottom Line: Design a schema that can be explained easily

relation by relation. The semantics of attributes should be
easy to interpret.
Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 7
Figure 14.1 A simplified COMPANY relational
database schema

The ease with which the meaning of a

relation’s attributes can be explained is
an informal measure of how well the
relation is designed

Figure 14.1 A simplified

COMPANY relational
database schema.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 8

Figure 14.2 Sample database state for the relational
database schema in Figure 14.1.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 9

1.2 Redundant Information in Tuples and
Update Anomalies

◼ Information is stored redundantly

◼ Wastes storage
◼ Causes problems with update anomalies
◼ Insertion anomalies
◼ Deletion anomalies
◼ Modification anomalies

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 10

Example of “Wastes storage”

◼ Compare the space used by:

◼ Two base relations EMPLOYEE and DEPARTMENT (Figure 14.2)

◼ The EMP_DEPT base relation (Figure 14.4),

◼ NATURAL JOIN operation to EMPLOYEE and DEPARTMENT

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 11

Example of “Wastes storage”
Figure 14. 2
Design # 1

Figure 14. 4
Design # 2

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 12

 EXAMPLE OF AN UPDATE ANOMALY

◼ Consider the relation:

◼ EMP_PROJ(Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname, No_hours)

◼ Update Anomaly:
◼ Changing the name of project number P1 from
“Billing” to “Customer-Accounting” may cause this
update to be made for all 100 employees working on
project P1.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 13

EXAMPLE OF AN INSERT ANOMALY
◼ Consider the relation:
◼ EMP_PROJ(Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname, No_hours)

◼ Insert Anomaly:
◼ Cannot insert a project unless an employee is
assigned to it.

◼ Conversely
◼ Cannot insert an employee unless he/she is assigned
to a project.
Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 14
EXAMPLE OF A DELETE ANOMALY

◼ Consider the relation:

◼ EMP_PROJ(Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname, No_hours)

◼ Delete Anomaly:
◼ When a project is deleted, it will result in deleting all
the employees who work on that project.
◼ Alternately, if an employee is the sole employee on a
project, deleting that employee would result in deleting
the corresponding project.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 15

Figure 14.3 Two relation schemas
suffering from update anomalies

Figure 14.3
Two relation schemas
suffering from update
anomalies. (a)
EMP_DEPT and (b)
EMP_PROJ.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 16

Figure 14.4 Sample states for
EMP_DEPT and EMP_PROJ
Figure 14.4
Sample states for EMP_DEPT
and EMP_PROJ resulting from
applying NATURAL JOIN to the
relations in Figure 14.2. These
may be stored as base
relations for performance
reasons.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 17

Guideline for Redundant Information in
Tuples and Update Anomalies

◼ GUIDELINE 2:
◼ Design a schema that does not suffer from the
insertion, deletion and update anomalies.

◼ If there are any anomalies present, then note them so

that applications can be made to take them into account.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 18

1.3 Null Values in Tuples

◼ GUIDELINE 3:
◼ Relations should be designed such that their
tuples will have as few NULL values as possible
◼ Attributes that are NULL frequently could be
placed in separate relations (with the primary key)
◼ Reasons for nulls:
◼ Attribute not applicable or invalid
◼ Attribute value unknown (may exist)
◼ Value known to exist, but unavailable

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 19

 1.3 Null Values in Tuples

◼ The target is: Using space efficiently, For example:

◼ If only 15% of employees have individual offices, then:
◼ There is little justification for including an attribute
Office_number in the EMPLOYEE relation;

◼ Rather, a relation EMP_OFFICES(Essn, Office_number)

can be created to include tuples for only the employees
with individual offices.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 20

 1.4 Generation of Spurious Tuples – avoid
at any cost
◼ Bad designs for a relational database may result in erroneous
results for certain JOIN operations
◼ Make sure that we are joining FK attribute to a primary key
attribute

◼ GUIDELINE 4:
◼ Design relation schemas so that they can be joined with
equality conditions on attributes that are appropriately
related (primary key, foreign key) pairs in a way that
guarantees that no spurious tuples are generated

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 21

 Example Spurious Tuples
Consider the two relation
schemas EMP_LOCS and
EMP_PROJ1 in Figure 14.5(a),
which can be used instead of
the single EMP_PROJ relation
in Figure 14.3(b).

Suppose that we used

EMP_PROJ1 and EMP_LOCS
as the base relations instead
of EMP_PROJ.
This produces a particularly
bad schema design because
we cannot recover the
information that was
originally in EMP_PROJ from
EMP_PROJ1 and
Copyright EMP_LOCS.
© 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 22
Example Spurious Tuples

If we attempt a NATURAL
JOIN operation on
EMP_PROJ1 and
EMP_LOCS, the result
produces many more
tuples than the original set
of tuples in EMP_PROJ.

Figure 14.6: Result of

applying NATURAL JOIN to
the tuples in EMP_PROJ1
and EMP_LOCS of Figure
14.5 just for employee with
Ssn = “123456789”.
Generated spurious
tuples are marked by
asterisks.Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 23
 Figure 14.3(b).

Figure 14.4(b).

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 24

 2. 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. This can be denoted as X→Y

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 25

2.1 Defining 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

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 26

Examples of FD constraints (1)

◼ 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

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 27

Defining FDs from instances

◼ An FD is a property of the attributes in the schema R

◼ The constraint must hold on every relation state 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]

◼ To define the FDs, we need to understand:

◼ The meaning of the attributes involved and
◼ The relationship between them.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 28

Defining FDs from instances

◼ Given the instance (population or state) of a relation,

all we can conclude is that an FD may exist between
certain attributes.

◼ What we can definitely conclude is – that certain

FDs do not exist because there are tuples that show
a violation of those dependencies.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 29

Figure 14.8 What FDs may exist?

◼ A relation R(A, B, C, D) with its extension.

◼ Which FDs may exist in this relation?

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 31

3 Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys

◼ 3.1 Normalization of Relations

◼ 3.2 Practical Use of Normal Forms
◼ 3.3 Definitions of Keys and Attributes
Participating in Keys
◼ 3.4 First Normal Form
◼ 3.5 Second Normal Form
◼ 3.6 Third Normal Form

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 32

3.1 Normalization of Relations (1)

◼ 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

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 33

Figure 14.3 Two relation schemas
suffering from update anomalies

Figure 14.3
Two relation schemas
suffering from update
anomalies. (a)
EMP_DEPT and (b)
EMP_PROJ.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 34

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

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 35

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 and BCNF. 4NF rarely used in practice.)

◼ Denormalization:
◼ The process of storing the join of higher normal form relations
as a base relation—which is in a lower normal form
Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 36
 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.

◼ The difference between a key and a superkey is that a key

has to be minimal;
◼ Example:In Figure 14.1, {Ssn} is a key for EMPLOYEE,
whereas {Ssn}, {Ssn, Ename}, {Ssn, Ename, Bdate}, and any
set of attributes that includes Ssn are all superkeys.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 37

 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.
◼ Ex. In Figure 14.1, {Ssn} is the only candidate key for EMPLOYEE, so it is
also the primary key.

◼ Prime vs Nonprime Attribute:

◼ A Prime attribute must be a member of some candidate key
◼ A Nonprime attribute is not a member of any candidate key.
◼ Example: In Figure 14.1, both Ssn and Pnumber are prime attributes of
WORKS_ON, whereas other attributes of WORKS_ON are nonprime.
Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe
3.4 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 a relation
◼ Most RDBMSs allow only those relations to be
defined that are in First Normal Form

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 39

Figure 14.9 Normalization into 1NF
Figure 14.9
Normalization into 1NF. (a)
A relation schema that is not
in 1NF. (b) Sample state of
relation DEPARTMENT. (c)
1NF version of the same
relation with redundancy.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 40

Figure 14.10 Normalizing nested relations into 1NF

Figure 14.10
Normalizing nested relations into 1NF. (a) Schema of the EMP_PROJ relation with a
nested relation attribute PROJS. (b) Sample extension of the EMP_PROJ relation
showing nested relations within each tuple. (c) Decomposition of EMP_PROJ into
relations EMP_PROJ1 and EMP_PROJ2 by propagating the primary key.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 41

3.5 Second Normal Form (1)
◼ Uses the concepts of FDs, primary key
◼ Definitions
◼ Prime attribute: An attribute that is a member of the
primary (or candidate) key K
◼ Full functional dependency: an FD Y➔ Z where removal of
any attribute from Y means the FD does not hold anymore

◼ 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

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 42

Figure 14.3 Two relation schemas
suffering from update anomalies

Figure 14.3
Two relation schemas
suffering from update
anomalies. (a)
EMP_DEPT and (b)
EMP_PROJ.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 43

Second Normal Form (2)

◼ 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 or “second
normalization”

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 44

Figure 14.11 Normalizing into 2NF and 3NF
Figure 14.11
Normalizing into 2NF and 3NF.
(a) Normalizing EMP_PROJ into
2NF relations. (b) Normalizing
EMP_DEPT into 3NF relations.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 45

 Figure 14.12 Normalization into 2NF and 3NF

◼ Consider the relation schema LOTS shown in Figure 14.12(a).

◼ It describes parcels of land for sale in various counties of a state.

◼ Suppose that there are two candidate keys:

◼ Property_id# and {County_name, Lot#};

◼ That is,:
◼ Lot numbers are unique only within each county, but
◼ Property_id# numbers are unique across counties for entire state.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 46

 Figure 14.12 Normalization into 2NF and 3NF
◼ Based on the two candidate keys {Property_id#} and
{County_name, Lot#}, then:
◼ Functional dependencies FD1 and FD2 in Figure 14.12(a) hold.
◼ We choose Property_id# as the primary key (but no special
consideration will be given to this key over the other candidate key).

◼ Suppose that the following two additional functional

dependencies hold in LOTS:

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 47

Figure 14.12 Normalization into 2NF and 3NF

Figure 14.12
Normalization into 2NF and 3NF.

(a) The LOTS relation with its functional

dependencies FD1 through FD4.

(b) Decomposing into the 2NF relations LOTS1

and LOTS2.

(c) Decomposing LOTS1 into the 3NF relations

LOTS1A and LOTS1B.

(d) Progressive normalization of LOTS into a

3NF design.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slid

 3.6 Third Normal Form (1)
◼ 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

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 49

Third Normal Form (2)
◼ 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.
Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 50
4. General Normal Form Definitions (For
Multiple Keys) (1)

◼ The following more general definitions take into

account relations with multiple candidate keys

◼ Any attribute involved in a candidate key is a prime

attribute

◼ All other attributes are called non-prime attributes.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 51

4.1 General Definition of 2NF
◼ 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

◼ In Figure 14.12 the FD

County_name➔ Tax_rate violates 2NF.

◼ So second normalization converts LOTS into

LOTS1 (Property_id#, County_name, Lot#, Area, Price)
LOTS2 ( County_name, Tax_rate)

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 52

4.2 General Definition of Third Normal Form

◼ Definition:
◼ Again, 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
◼ LOTS1 relation violates 3NF because
Area➔ Price; and Area is not a superkey in LOTS1.
(see Figure 14.12).

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 53

4.3 Interpreting the General Definition of
Third Normal Form
◼ Consider the 2 conditions in the Definition of 3NF:
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
◼ Condition (a) catches two types of violations :
- one where a prime attribute functionally determines
a non-prime attribute. This catches 2NF violations due to
non-full functional dependencies.
-second, where a non-prime attribute functionally
determines a non-prime attribute. This catches 3NF
violations due to a transitive dependency.
Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 54
4.3 Interpreting the General Definition of
Third Normal Form (2)
◼ ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION of 3NF: We can restate the definition
as:
A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if
every non-prime attribute in R meets both of these
conditions:
◼ It is fully functionally dependent on every key of R

◼ It is non-transitively dependent on every key of R

Note that stated this way, a relation in 3NF also meets

the requirements for 2NF.
◼ The condition (b) from the last slide takes care of the
dependencies that “slip through” (are allowable to) 3NF
but are “caught by” BCNF which we discuss next.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 55

5. 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
◼ Hence BCNF is considered a stronger form of 3NF
◼ The goal is to have each relation in BCNF (or 3NF)

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 56

Figure 14.13 Boyce-Codd normal form

Figure 14.13
Boyce-Codd normal form. (a) BCNF normalization of
LOTS1A with the functional dependency FD2 being lost in
the decomposition. (b) A schematic relation with FDs; it is
in 3NF, but not in BCNF due to the f.d. C → B.

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 57

 Figure 14.13 Boyce-Codd normal form

◼ Suppose that we have thousands of lots in the relation but the lots are from only
two counties: DeKalb and Fulton.
◼ Suppose also that lot sizes in DeKalb County are only 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0
acres, whereas lot sizes in Fulton County are restricted to 1.1, 1.2, … , 1.9, and 2.0
acres.
◼ In such a situation we would have the additional functional dependency FD5:
Area → County_name. If we add this to the other dependencies, the relation
schema LOTS1A still is in 3NF because this f.d. conforms to clause (b) in the
general definition of 3NF, County_name being a prime attribute.
◼ The area of a lot that determines the county, as specified by FD5, can be
represented by 16 tuples in a separate relation R(Area, County_name), since
there are only 16 possible Area values (see Figure 14.13).
◼ This representation reduces the redundancy of repeating the same information in
the thousands of LOTS1A tuples. BCNF is a stronger normal form that would
disallow LOTS1A and suggest the need for decomposing it.
Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 58
Important Practice Example

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 59

Figure 14.13 Boyce-Codd normal form

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 60

Figure 14.13 Boyce-Codd normal form

Copyright © 2017 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 61