Chapter 8: Relational Database Design

Database System Concepts, 6th Ed.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use
 Chapter 8: Relational Database Design
 Features of Good Relational Design
 Atomic Domains and First Normal Form
 Decomposition Using Functional Dependencies
 Functional Dependency Theory
 Algorithms for Functional Dependencies
 Database-Design Process

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.2 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Introduction
 Let consider the problem of designing schemas for a relational
database.
 In general, the goal of relational database design is to generate a set of
relation schemas that allows us to store information without
unnecessary redundancy, yet also allows us to retrieve information
easily.
 This is accomplished by designing schemas that are in an appropriate
normal form.
 To determine whether a relation schema is in one of the desirable
normal forms, we need information about the real-world enterprise that
we are modeling with the database.
 Some of this information exists in a well-designed E-R diagram, but
additional information about the enterprise may be needed as well.
 A formal approach to relational database design is based on the notion
of functional dependencies. We then define normal forms in terms of
functional dependencies and other types of data dependencies.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.3 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Combine Schemas?
 Suppose we combine instructor and department into inst_dept
 instructor(ID, name, dept_name, salary)
 department(dept_name, building, budget)
 Inst_dept (ID, name, salary, dept name, building, budget)
 Result is possible repetition of information (building and budget)
 Introducing null values while creating a new department unless at
least one instructor in that department.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.4 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 What About Smaller Schemas?
 Suppose we had started with inst_dept. How would we know to split up
(decompose) it into instructor and department?
 Write a rule “if there were a schema (dept_name, building, budget), then
dept_name would be a candidate key”
 Denote as a functional dependency:
dept_name  building, budget
 In inst_dept, because dept_name is not a candidate key, the building
and budget of a department may have to be repeated.
 This indicates the need to decompose inst_dept
 Not all decompositions are good. Suppose we decompose
employee(ID, name, street, city, salary) into
employee1 (ID, name)
employee2 (name, street, city, salary)
 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 - 6th Edition 8.5 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 A Lossy Decomposition

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.6 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example of Lossless-Join Decomposition

 Lossless join decomposition

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

A B C A B B C
 1 A  1 1 A
 2 B  2 2 B
r A,B(r) B,C(r)

A B C
A, B (r) B,C (r)
 1 A
 2 B

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.7 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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 (say, address)
 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
 Example: Set of accounts stored with each customer, and set of
owners stored with each account
 We assume all relations are in first normal form

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.8 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 First Normal Form (Cont’d)
 The important issue is not what the domain itself is, but rather how we
use domain elements in our database.
 Atomicity is actually a property of how the elements of the domain are
used.
 Example: Strings would normally be considered indivisible
 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.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.9 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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
 The theory is based on:
 functional dependencies
 multivalued dependencies

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.10 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Constraints and Functional Dependencies
 A database models a set of entities and relationships in the real world.
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:
 1. Students and instructors are uniquely identified by their ID.
 2. Each student and instructor has only one name.
 3. Each instructor and student is (primarily) associated with only one
department.
 4. Each department has only one value for its budget, and only one
associated building.
 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.
 Some of the most commonly used types of real-world constraints can
be represented formally as keys (superkeys, candidate keys and
primary keys), or as functional dependencies.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.11 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Functional Dependencies (Cont.)
 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.
 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.
 On this instance, A  B does NOT hold, but B  A does hold.1 4
1 5
3 7

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.12 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Super Key & Functional Dependency
 Using the functional-dependency notation, we say that K is a superkey of r
(R) if the functional dependency K→R holds on r (R).
 In other words, K is a superkey if, for every legal instance of r (R), for
every pair of tuples t1 and t2 from the instance, whenever t1[K] = t2[K], it
is also the case that t1[R] = t2[R] (that is, t1 = t2).
 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:
inst_dept (ID, name, salary, dept_name, building, budget ).
We expect these functional dependencies to hold:
dept_name  building and dept_name  budget along with others
but would not expect dept_name  salary to hold

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.13 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Use of Functional Dependencies
 We use functional dependencies 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.
 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 - 6th Edition 8.14 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Find the Functional Dependencies
 Let us consider the instance of relation r :
 Satisfies
 A→C, D →B
 Don’t satisfy:
 C→A
 What about the following FDs?
 A→B, A→D, B→A, B→C, B→D
 C→B, C→D, D→A, D→C

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.15 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Use of Functional Dependencies
 It is important to realize that an instance of a relation may satisfy some
functional dependencies.

 Here, room_number→capacity is satisfied (but should not include)

 However, we believe that, in the real world, two classrooms in different
buildings can have the same room number but with different room
capacity.
 Thus, it is possible, at some time, to have an instance of the
classroom relation in which room number→capacity is not satisfied.
 We would expect the functional dependency building, room_ number
→capacity to hold on the classroom schema.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.16 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Trivial Functional Dependencies
 Some functional dependencies are said to be trivial because they are
satisfied by all relations.
 For example, A → A is satisfied by all relations involving attribute
A.
 Reading the definition of functional dependency literally, we see that,
for all tuples t1 and t2 such that t1[A] = t2[A], it is the case that t1[A] =
t2[A].
 Similarly, AB → A is satisfied by all relations involving attribute A. In
general,
 Example:
 ID, name  ID
 name  name
 In general, a functional dependency of the form    is trivial if 


Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.17 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Closure of a Set of Functional
Dependencies
 Given a set F of functional dependencies, there are certain other
functional dependencies that are logically implied by F.
 For example: If A  B and B  C, then we can infer that A 
C
 The set of all functional dependencies logically implied by F is the
closure of F.
 We denote the closure of F by F+.
 F+ is a superset of F.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.18 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Boyce-Codd Normal Form
 One of the more desirable normal forms that we can obtain is
Boyce–Codd normal form (BCNF).
 It eliminates all redundancy that can be discovered based on
functional dependencies, though, there may be other types of
redundancy remaining.
 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 a trivial functional dependency (that is,  ⊆ ).
  is a superkey for schema R.
 Example schema is not in BCNF:
inst_dept (ID, name, salary, dept_name, building, budget )
 because dept_name  building, budget
holds on inst_dept, but dept_name is not a superkey

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.19 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Boyce-Codd Normal Form
 The decomposition of inst_dept into instructor and department is a better
design.
 The instructor schema is in BCNF. All of the nontrivial functional
dependencies that hold, such as:
 ID → name, dept_name, salary
include ID on the left side of the arrow, and ID is a superkey (actually, in
this case, the primary key) for instructor.
 Similarly, the department schema is in BCNF because all of the nontrivial
functional dependencies that hold, such as:
 dept_name → building, budget
include dept_name on the left side of the arrow, and dept_name is a
superkey (and the primary key) for department. Thus, department is in
BCNF.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.20 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Decomposing a Schema into BCNF
 Suppose we have a schema R that is not in BCNF. Then there is at
least one non-trivial dependency  that causes a violation of
BCNF.That  is not a superkey for R
We decompose R into:
• (U  )
• (R-(-))
 In our example,
  = dept_name
  = building, budget
and inst_dept is replaced by
 (U  ) = ( dept_name, building, budget )
 ( R - (  -  ) ) = ( ID, name, salary, dept_name )
 When we decompose a schema that is not in BCNF, it may be that one
or more of the resulting schemas are not in BCNF. In such cases,
further decomposition is required, the eventual result of which is a set
of BCNF schemas.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.21 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Functional-Dependency Theory
 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 - 6th Edition 8.22 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Closure of a Set of Functional
Dependencies
 Given a set F of functional dependencies on a schema, we can
prove that certain other functional dependencies also hold on the
schema.
 We say that such functional dependencies are “logically implied” by
F.
 When testing for normal forms, it is not sufficient to consider the
given set of functional dependencies; rather, we need to consider all
functional dependencies that hold on the schema.
 More formally, given a relational schema r (R), a functional
dependency f on R is logically implied by a set of functional
dependencies F on r if every instance of r (R) that satisfies F also
satisfies f .
 For e.g.: If A  B and B  C, then we can infer that A  C
 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 - 6th Edition 8.23 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Closure of a Set of Functional
Dependencies
 Suppose we are given a relation schema R = (A, B, C, G, H, I) and
the set of functional dependencies:
 A→B
 A→C
 CG → H
 CG → I
 B→H
 The functional dependency: A → H is logically implied
 Let F be a set of functional dependencies. The closure of F,
denoted by F+, is the set of all functional dependencies logically
implied by F.
 Given F, we can compute F+ directly from the formal definition of
functional dependency. If F were large, this process would be
lengthy and difficult.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.24 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Closure of a Set of Functional
Dependencies
 Axioms, or rules of inference, provide a simpler technique for reasoning
about functional dependencies.
 We can use the following three rules to find logically implied functional
dependencies. By applying these rules repeatedly, we can find all of F+,
given F.
 This collection of rules is called Armstrong’s Axioms in honor of the person
who first proposed it.
 Reflexivity rule. If  is a set of attributes and  ⊆ , then    holds
(Trivial functional dependency).
 Augmentation rule. If    holds and  is a set of attributes, then 
    holds.
 Transitivity rule. If    holds and    holds, then    holds.
 These rules are
 sound (generate only functional dependencies that actually hold), and
 complete (generate all functional dependencies that hold).

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.25 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Closure of Functional Dependencies
(Cont.)
 Although Armstrong’s axioms are complete, it is tiresome to use
them directly for the computation of F+. To simplify matters further,
we list additional rules.
 It is possible to use Armstrong’s axioms to prove that these rules
are sound.
 Additional rules:
 If    holds and    holds, then     holds (union)
 If     holds, then    holds and    holds
(decomposition)
 If    holds and     holds, then     holds
(pseudotransitivity)
The above rules can be inferred from Armstrong’s axioms.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.26 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example
 R = (A, B, C, G, H, I)
F = { A  B, A  C, CG  H, CG  I, B  H}
 We list several members of F+
 AH
 by transitivity from A  B and B  H
 AG  I
 Since A →C and CG → I , the pseudotransitivity rule implies that
AG → I holds.
 use the augmentation rule on A→ C to infer AG → CG. Applying
the transitivity rule to this dependency and CG → I, we infer AG
→I
 CG  HI
 Since CG → H and CG → I , the union rule implies that CG → HI
.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.27 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Procedure for Computing F+
 To compute the closure of a set of functional dependencies F:

F+=F
repeat
for each functional dependency f in F+
apply reflexivity and augmentation rules on f
add the resulting functional dependencies to F +
for each pair of functional dependencies f1and f2 in F +
if f1 and f2 can be combined using transitivity
then add the resulting functional dependency to F +
until F + does not change any further

NOTE: We shall see an alternative procedure for this task later

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.28 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Closure of Attribute Sets
 We say that an attribute B is functionally determined by  if  → B.
 To test whether a set is a superkey, we must devise an algorithm for
computing the set of attributes functionally determined by .
 One way of doing this is to compute F+, take all functional
dependencies with as the left-hand side, and take the union of the
right-hand sides of all such dependencies.
 However, doing so can be expensive, since F+ can be large.
 An efficient algorithm for computing the set of attributes functionally
determined by  is useful not only for testing whether is a superkey,
but also for several other tasks.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.29 ©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 - 6th Edition 8.30 ©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 (AG)+  R
2. Is any subset of AG a superkey?
1. Does A  R? == Is (A)+  R
2. Does G  R? == Is (G)+  R

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.31 ©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 - 6th Edition 8.32 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Canonical Cover
 Sets of functional dependencies may have redundant dependencies
that can be inferred from the others
 For example: A  C is redundant in: {A  B, B  C, A  C}
 Parts of a functional dependency may be redundant
 E.g.: on RHS: {A  B, B  C, A  CD} can be simplified to

{A  B, B  C, A  D}
 E.g.: on LHS: {A  B, B  C, AC  D} 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, having no redundant dependencies or
redundant parts of dependencies

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.33 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Extraneous Attributes
 Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional
dependency    in F.
 Attribute A is extraneous in  if A  
and F logically implies (F – {  })  {( – A)  }.
 Attribute A is extraneous in  if A  
and the set of functional dependencies
(F – {  })  { ( – A)} logically implies F.
 Note: implication in the opposite direction is trivial in each of the
cases above, since a “stronger” functional dependency always implies
a weaker one
 Example: Given F = {A  C, AB  C }
 B is extraneous in AB  C because {A  C, AB  C} logically
implies A  C (I.e. the result of dropping B from 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

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.34 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Testing if an Attribute is Extraneous
 Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional
dependency    in F.
 To test if attribute A   is extraneous in 
1. compute ({} – A)+ using the dependencies in F
2. check that ({} – A)+ contains ; if it does, A is extraneous in 
 To test if attribute A   is extraneous in 
1. compute + using only the dependencies in
F’ = (F – {  })  { ( – A)},
2. check that + contains A; if it does, A is extraneous in 

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.35 ©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.
 To compute a canonical cover for F:
repeat
Use the union rule to replace any dependencies in F
1  1 and 1  2 with 1  1 2
Find a functional dependency    with an
extraneous attribute either in  or in 
/* Note: test for extraneous attributes done using Fc, not F*/
If an extraneous attribute is found, delete it from   
until F does not change
 Note: Union rule may become applicable after some extraneous attributes
have been deleted, so it has to be re-applied

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.36 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 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 - 6th Edition 8.37 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Lossless-join Decomposition
 Let r (R) be a relation schema, and let F be a set of functional
dependencies on r (R). Let R1 and R2 form a decomposition of R.
 For the case of R = (R1 , R2), for lossless-join decomposition we
require that for all possible relations r on schema R,
r = R1 (r ) R2 (r ) [using RA]
 Or
 select * from r =
select * from (select R1 from r) natural join (select R2 from r) [in SQL]
 A decomposition of R into R1 and R2 is lossless join 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 - 6th Edition 8.38 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example
 R = (A, B, C)
F = {A  B, B  C)
 Can be decomposed in two different ways
 R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
 Lossless-join decomposition:
R1  R2 = {B} and B  C i.e. B  BC
 Dependency preserving
 R1 = (A, B), R2 = (A, C)
 Lossless-join decomposition:
R1  R2 = {A} and A  B i.e. A  AB
 Not dependency preserving
(cannot check B  C without computing R1 R2)

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.39 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 BCNF and Dependency Preservation
 Constraints, including functional dependencies, are costly to check in
practice unless they pertain to only one relation
 If it is sufficient to test only those dependencies on each individual
relation of a decomposition in order to ensure that all functional
dependencies hold, then that decomposition is dependency
preserving.
 Because it is not always possible to achieve both BCNF and
dependency preservation, we consider a weaker normal form, known
as third normal form.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.40 ©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 +
 If it is not, then checking updates for violation of functional
dependencies may require computing joins, which is
expensive.

F+

A -> B A -> C B -> C

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.41 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Dependency Preservation
 Let F be a set of functional dependencies on schema R.
 Let R1,R2,…..,Rn be a decomposition of R.
 The restriction of F to Ri is the set of all functional dependencies in F+ that
include only attributes of Ri.
 Functional dependencies in a restriction can be tested in one relation, as they
involve attributes in one relation schema.
 The set of restrictions F1, F2, ….., Fn is the set of dependencies that can be
checked efficiently.
 We need to know whether testing only the restrictions is sufficient.
 Let F´ = F1 ∪ F2 ∪ ... ∪ Fn.
 F´ is a set of functional dependencies on schema R, but in general, F´ 
F . However, it may be that F´+ = F+
 If this is so, then every functional dependency in F is implied by F´, and if F´ is
satisfied, then F must also be satisfied.
 A decomposition having the property that F´+ = F+ is a dependency-preserving
decomposition.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.42 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Dependency Preservation
 The algorithm for testing dependency preservation follows this method:
 compute F+
 for each schema Ri in D do
begin
Fi := the restriction of F+ to Ri
end
F´ := null
for each restriction Fi do
begin
F´ = F´ ∪ Fi
end
compute F´+
if (F´+ = F+) then return (true)
else return (false)

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.43 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Dependency Preservation: Easier
Alternative
 Instead of applying the algorithm, we consider an easier alternative:
 We consider each member of the set F of functional dependencies
that we require to hold on a schema and show that each one can be
tested in at least one relation in the decomposition.
 If each member of F can be tested on one of the relations of the
decomposition, then the decomposition is dependency preserving.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.44 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example: BCNF Decomposition &
Dependency Preservation
 R = (A, B, C )
F = {A  B, F = {B  C,
B  C} or A  B}
Key = {A}
 R is not in BCNF
 B is not a superkey
 Decomposition R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
 R1 and R2 in BCNF
 Lossless-join decomposition
 Dependency preserving

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.45 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 More Example (FD Ordering)
 a) i) R = (A, B, C)
F = {A → C,
B → C}
No left hand side of given FDs is a candidate key, Key = {AB}
 Decomposition: R1=(A, C) and R2=(A,B) ; BCNF but the dependency B →
C will not be preserved.
 ii) R = (A, B, C)
F = {B → C,
A → C}
No left hand side of given FDs is a candidate key, Key = {AB}
 Decomposition: R1=(B, C) and R2=(A,B) ; BCNF but the dependency A →
C will not be preserved.
 a) Both are not dependency preserving but b) Mark the ordering of FDs to
get different set of decomposed schemas.
 Both are lossless join decompositions.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.46 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 More Example (Design Goal)
 R = (A, B, C), for different orientation of FDs, check the below table:

Sl FDs Key Decomposed Loss-Less Join BCNF? Dependency

Schemas Decomposition? Preserving?
1 A → B, A No Need to NA Already NA
A→C Decompose
2 A → B, A R1 = (B,C) √ √ √
R2 = (A,B)
B→C
3 A → B, C R1 = (A,B) √ √ √
R2 = (A,C)
C→A
R1 = (A,B) √ √ No, C → B
A → B, R2 = (A,C)
4 AC
C→B R1 = (B,C) √ √ No, A → B
R2 = (A,C)
5 A → C, B R1 = (A,C) √ √ √
R2 = (A,B)
B→A
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.47 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 More Example (Design Goal)
Sl FDs Key Decomposed Loss-Less Join BCNF? Dependency
Schemas Decomposition? Preserving?
R1 = (A,C) √ √ No
A → C, R2 = (A,B)
7 AB
B→C R1 = (B,C) √ √ No
R2 = (A,B)
8 B → A, B No Need to NA Already NA
Decompose
B→C
R1 = (A,B) √ √ No
B → A, R2 = (B,C)
9 BC
C→A R1 = (A,C) √ √ No
R2 = (B,C)
10 B → A, C R1 = (A,B) √ √ √
R2 = (B,C)
C→B
11 B → C, B R1 = (A,C) √ √ √
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition R2 = (B,C) 8.48 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 More Example (FD Ordering)
 R = (A, B, C, D)
F = {A → BC, B → D, D → B}
 Change the order of the last two functional dependencies and check the
two decompositions for dependency preservation.
 1. F = {A → BC, B → D, D → B}, Key {A}, B is not a Key
 Decomposition: R1=(B, D) and R2=(A,B,C) ; BCNF and the dependency
preserving.
 2. F = {A → BC, D → B, B → D}, Key {A}, D is not a Key
 Decomposition: R1=(B, D) and R2=(A,C,D) ; BCNF but the dependency
A → BC will not be preserved.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.49 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Testing for BCNF
 To check if a non-trivial dependency  causes a violation of BCNF
1. compute + (the attribute closure of ), and
2. verify that it includes all attributes of R, that is, it is a superkey of R.
 Simplified test: To check if a relation schema R is in BCNF, it suffices
to check only the dependencies in the given set F for violation of BCNF,
rather than checking all dependencies in F+.
 If none of the dependencies in F causes a violation of BCNF, then
none of the dependencies in F+ will cause a violation of BCNF
either.
 However, simplified test using only F is incorrect when testing a
relation in a decomposition of R
 Consider R = (A, B, C, D, E), with F = { A  B, BC  D}
 Decompose R into R1 = (A,B) and R2 = (A,C,D, E)
 Neither of the dependencies in F contain only attributes from
(A,C,D,E) so we might be mislead into thinking R2 satisfies
BCNF.
 In fact, dependency AC  D in F+ shows R2 is not in BCNF.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.50 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Testing Decomposition for BCNF

 To check if a relation Ri in a decomposition of R is in BCNF,

 Either test Ri for BCNF with respect to the restriction of F to Ri
(that is, all FDs in F+ that contain only attributes from Ri)
 or use the original set of dependencies F that hold on R, but with
the following test:
– for every set of attributes   Ri, check that + (the
attribute closure of ) either includes no attribute of Ri- ,
or includes all attributes of Ri.
 If the condition is violated by some   in F, the
dependency
 (+ - )  Ri
can be shown to hold on Ri, and Ri violates BCNF.
 We use above dependency to decompose Ri

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.51 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 BCNF Decomposition Algorithm

result := {R };
done := false;
compute F +;
while (not done) do
if (there is a schema Ri in result that is not in BCNF)
then begin
let    be a nontrivial functional dependency that
holds on Ri such that   Ri is not in F +,
and    = ;
result := (result – Ri )  (Ri – )  (,  );
end
else done := true;

Note: each Ri is in BCNF, and decomposition is lossless-join.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.52 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Example of BCNF Decomposition
 R = (A, B, C )
F = {A  B
B  C}
Key = {A}
 R is not in BCNF (B  C but B is not superkey)
 Decomposition
 R1 = (B, C)
 R2 = (A,B)
 Lossless-join decomposition
 Both schemas are in BCNF
 Dependency preserving

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.53 ©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 - 6th Edition 8.54 ©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 - 6th Edition 8.55 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 BCNF and Dependency Preservation

 It is not always possible to get a BCNF decomposition that is

dependency preserving

 R = (J, L, K)
F = {JK  L
LK}
Two candidate keys = JK and JL
 R is not in BCNF
 Any decomposition of R will fail to preserve
JK  L
This implies that testing for JK  L requires a join

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.56 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Third Normal Form: Motivation
 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)
 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 - 6th Edition 8.57 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Third Normal Form
 BCNF requires that all nontrivial dependencies be of the form    ,
where  is a superkey. Third normal form (3NF) relaxes this constraint
slightly by allowing certain nontrivial functional dependencies whose left
side is not a superkey.
 A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) with respect to a set F
of functional dependencies, if for all:
   in F+
where  ⊆ R and  ⊆ R, at least one of the following holds:
    is a trivial functional dependency (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)
 Note that the third condition above does not say that a single candidate
key must contain all the attributes in  –  ; each attribute A in  –  may
be contained in a different candidate key.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.58 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Example
 First, an instructor can act as advisor for only a single department
 i_ID  dept_name
 The second functional dependency follows from the requirement that “a
student may have at most one advisor for a given department.”
 s_ID, dept_name  i_ID

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.59 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Example
 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.
 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
 {s_ID, dept_name} is a superkey – says dept_advisor is in BCNF
 But {i_ID} is not a superkey - says dept_advisor is NOT in BCNF
 Although R is in 3NF
 s_ID, dept_name  i_ID
– s_ID , dept_name is a superkey
 and for i_ID  dept_name, = i_ID ,  = dept_name
–  -  = dept_name; dept_name is contained in a candidate key
– dept_advisor is in 3NF

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.60 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Redundancy in 3NF
 There is some redundancy in this schema
 Example of problems due to redundancy in 3NF
 R = (J, L, K)
F = {JK  L, L  K } J L K
 j1 l1 k1
J = s_ID
 L = i_ID j2 l1 k1
 K = dept_name
j3 l1 k1
 s_ID, dept_name  i_ID,
null l2 k2
 i_ID  dept_name
 repetition of information (e.g., the relationship l1, k1)
 (i_ID, dept_name)
 need to use null values (e.g., to represent the relationship
l2, k2 where there is no corresponding value for J).
 (i_ID, dept_name) if there is no separate relation mapping instructors
to departments

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.61 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Testing for 3NF
 Optimization: Need to check only FDs in F, need not check all FDs in
F+.
 Use attribute closure to check for each dependency   , if  is a
superkey.
 If  is not a superkey, we have to verify if each attribute in  is
contained in a candidate key of R
 this test is rather more expensive, since it involve finding
candidate keys
 testing for 3NF has been shown to be NP-hard
 Interestingly, decomposition into third normal form (described
shortly) can be done in polynomial time

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.62 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Decomposition Algorithm

Let Fc be a canonical cover for F;

i := 0;
for each functional dependency    in Fc do
if none of the schemas Rj, 1  j  i contains  
then begin
i := i + 1;
Ri :=  
end
if none of the schemas Rj, 1  j  i contains a candidate key for R
then begin
i := i + 1;
Ri := any candidate key for R;
end
/* Optionally, remove redundant relations */
repeat
if any schema Rj is contained in another schema Rk
then /* delete Rj */
Rj = R;;
i=i-1;
return (R1, R2, ..., Ri)
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.63 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Decomposition Algorithm (Cont.)
 Above algorithm ensures:
 each relation schema Ri is in 3NF
 decomposition is dependency preserving and lossless-join
 Proof of correctness is stated in the book.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.64 ©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:
1. customer_id, employee_id  branch_name, type
2. employee_id  branch_name
3. 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 - 6th Edition 8.65 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 3NF Decompsition Example (Cont.)
 The for loop generates 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 - 6th Edition 8.66 ©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 - 6th Edition 8.67 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Goals of Normalization
 Let R be a relation schema with a set F of functional dependencies.
 Decide whether a relation schema R is in “good” form.
 In the case that a relation schema R is not in “good” form,
decompose it into a set of relation schemas {R1, R2, ..., Rn} such that
 each relation schema is in good form
 the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition
 Preferably, the decomposition should be dependency preserving.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.68 ©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 - 6th Edition 8.69 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Overall Database Design Process
 We have assumed schema R is given
 R could have been generated when converting E-R diagram to a set
of tables.
 R could have been a single relation containing all attributes that are
of interest (called universal relation). Normalization breaks R into
smaller relations.
 R could have been the result of some ad hoc design of relations,
which we then test/convert to normal form.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.70 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 End of Chapter

Database System Concepts, 6th Ed.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use
Proof of Correctness of 3NF
Decomposition Algorithm

Database System Concepts, 6th Ed.

©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use
 Correctness of 3NF Decomposition
Algorithm
 3NF decomposition algorithm is dependency preserving (since there
is a relation for every FD in Fc)
 Decomposition is lossless
 A candidate key (C ) is in one of the relations Ri in decomposition
 Closure of candidate key under Fc must contain all attributes in R.

 Follow the steps of attribute closure algorithm to show there is

only one tuple in the join result for each tuple in Ri

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.73 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Correctness of 3NF Decomposition
Algorithm (Cont’d.)

Claim: if a relation Ri is in the decomposition generated by the

above algorithm, then Ri satisfies 3NF.
 Let Ri be generated from the dependency   
 Let   B be any non-trivial functional dependency on Ri. (We need only
consider FDs whose right-hand side is a single attribute.)
 Now, B can be in either  or  but not in both. Consider each case
separately.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.74 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Correctness of 3NF Decomposition
(Cont’d.)
 Case 1: If B in :
 If  is a superkey, the 2nd condition of 3NF is satisfied
 Otherwise  must contain some attribute not in 
 Since   B is in F+ it must be derivable from Fc, by using attribute
closure on .
 Attribute closure not have used  . If it had been used,  must
be contained in the attribute closure of , which is not possible,
since we assumed  is not a superkey.
 Now, using  (- {B}) and   B, we can derive  B
(since    , and B   since   B is non-trivial)
 Then, B is extraneous in the right-hand side of  ; which is not
possible since   is in Fc.
 Thus, if B is in  then  must be a superkey, and the second
condition of 3NF must be satisfied.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.75 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Correctness of 3NF Decomposition
(Cont’d.)
 Case 2: B is in .
 Since  is a candidate key, the third alternative in the definition of
3NF is trivially satisfied.
 In fact, we cannot show that  is a superkey.
 This shows exactly why the third alternative is present in the
definition of 3NF.
Q.E.D.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.76 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Figure 8.02

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.77 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Figure 8.03

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.78 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Figure 8.04

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.79 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Figure 8.05

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.80 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Figure 8.06

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.81 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Figure 8.14

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.82 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Figure 8.15

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.83 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
 Figure 8.17

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 8.84 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan