90 likes | 106 Views
Normalization of database model. Closure an attribute set. Given a set of attributes α define the closure of attribute set α under F (denoted as α + ) as the set of attributes that are functionally depend on α under F . Example R(A,B,C,G,H,I) F={A->B,A->C,CG->H,CG->I,B->H}
E N D
Closure an attribute set Given a set of attributes αdefine the closure of attribute set αunder F (denoted as α+) as the set of attributes that are functionally depend onαunder F. Example R(A,B,C,G,H,I) F={A->B,A->C,CG->H,CG->I,B->H} (AG) + => AG trivial ABCG => (A->B,A->C) ABCGH => ( CG->H ) ABCGHI => (CG->I) Is AG is a superkey? Does AG->R ? Is AG a candidate key? A->R? Or G->R ? Compute A + and G+
Why to normalize? Teacher(T-Name,T-No,U-Name,U-No) Students(S-Name,S-No,U-No) Location(U-No,Room,Time); If all teacher who teach a particulas unit leavem the information about the unit (U-Name) is lost. If a teacher teaches many units then information on the teacher is unnecessarily replicated. Similary information about students attending to many units is unnecessarily duplicated. To update the U-Name, one may have to update many Teacher records. Normalization removes such problems!
First Normal Form A relation is in 1NF if it does not contain multivalued field or nested relations, but all the fields are atomic. Eg: Teacher(T-Name, T-No,Units(U-No,U-Name)); Teacher(T-No,T-Name,U-No,U-name);
Second Normal Form A relation R is in 2NF if it is in 1NF and each non-prime attribute of R is fully functionally dependent on each candidate key of R. Full Functional Dependency: X,Y-->Z; X-\->Z and Y-/->Z than X,Y-fully->Z Eg: Teacher(T-No,T-Name,U-No,U-Name); F={T-No->T-Name, U-No->U-Name}; Is in 2NF? U-Name is a non-prime attribute, but it does not fully functionally depend on the primary key, since U-No->U-Name; Solution: Teacher(T-No,T-Name); Unit(U-No,U-name); Teaches(U-No,T-No);
Example I Consider the following schema: Source(Supp-No,Part-No,Supp-Details,Supp-Name,Price); F={Supp-No->Supp-Details, Supp-No,Part-No->Price, Supp-No->Supp-Name}; Is in 2NF? No, since eg. Supp-Details is not prime attribute, but is depends only on Supp-No but not on Part-No! Solution: Suppliers(Supp-No,Supp-Details,Sup-Name); Cost(Supp-No,Part-No,Price);
Third Normal Form A relation R is in 3NF if it is in 2NF and non-prime attribute of R is not transitively depend on the primary key. Recall transitive dependency: A->B, B->C, => A->C; R(A,B,C) would not be in 3NF; Eg: Employee(E-No,E-Name,Dept-No,Salary,Location) F={E-No->E-Name,E-No->Dept-No,E-No->Salary, E-No->Location,Dept-No->Location} Location transitively depends on E-No, through Dept-No. Solution: Employee(E-No,E-Name,Dept-No,Salary) Department(Dept-No,Location);
Example II Timtetable(S-No,U-No,Time,S-Name,U-Name,Room-No); F={S-No->S-Name,U-No->U-Name, S-No,Time->RoomNo} Is in 3NF? No, it is not even in 2NF! Student(S-No,S-Name); Unit(U-No,U-Name); Location(S-No,Time,Room-No); Studies(S-No,U-No,Time); It is already in 3NF!
Example III Stock(Bin-No,Part-No,Bin-Quantity,Re-Order-Level); F={Bin-No->Part-No,Bin-No->Bin-Quantity,Part-No->Re-Order-Level} Is in 3NF? It is in 2NF but not in 3NF because of transitive dependency of Re-Order-Level! Bin-Stock(Bin-No,Part-No,Bin-Quantity); Re-Order(Part-No,Re-Order-Level);