Functional Dependency and Normalization for Relational

Databases

Introduction:
Relational database design ultimately produces a set of relations.
The implicit goals of the design activity are: information
preservation and minimum redundancy.

Informal Design Guidelines for Relation Schemas

Four informal guidelines that may be used as measures to
determine the quality of relation schema design:
Making sure that the semantics of the attributes is clear in the
schema
Reducing the redundant information in tuples
Reducing the NULL values in tuples
Disallowing the possibility of generating spurious tuples

Imparting Clear Semantics to Attributes in Relations

The semantics of a relation refers to its meaning resulting from
the interpretation of attribute values in a tuple. The relational
schema design should have a clear meaning.

Guideline 1
1. Design a relation schema so that it is easy to explain.
 2. Do not combine attributes from multiple entity types and
relationship types into a single relation.

Redundant Information in Tuples and Update Anomalies

One goal of schema design is to minimize the storage space used
by the base relations (and hence the corresponding files).
Grouping attributes into relation schemas has a significant effect
on storage space
Storing natural joins of base relations leads to an additional
problem referred to as update anomalies. These are: insertion
anomalies, deletion anomalies, and modification anomalies.
Insertion Anomalies happen:
 when insertion of a new tuple is not done properly and will
therefore can make the database become inconsistent.
 When the insertion of a new tuple introduces a NULL value
(for example a department in which no employee works as of
yet). This will violate the integrity constraint of the table since
ESsn is a primary key for the table.

Deletion Anomalies:
The problem of deletion anomalies is related to the second
insertion anomaly situation just discussed.
Example: If we delete from EMP_DEPT an employee tuple that
happens to represent the last employee working for a particular
department, the information concerning that department is lost
from the database.
Modification Anomalies happen if we fail to update all tuples as
a result in the change in a single one.
Example: if the manager changes for a department, all employees
who work for that department must be updated in all the tables.
It is easy to see that these three anomalies are undesirable and
cause difficulties to maintain consistency of data as well as
require unnecessary updates that can be avoided; hence

Guideline 2
Design the base relation schemas so that no insertion, deletion,
or modification anomalies are present in the relations.

If any anomalies are present, note them clearly and make sure
that the programs that update the database will operate correctly.
The second guideline is consistent with and, in a way, a
restatement of the first guideline.
NULL Values in Tuples
Fat Relations: A relation in which too many attributes are
grouped. If many of the attributes do not apply to all tuples in the
relation, we end up with many NULLs in those tuples. This can
waste space at the storage level and may also lead to problems
with understanding the meaning of the attributes and with
specifying JOIN operations at the logical level.
Another problem with NULLs is how to account for them when
aggregate operations such as COUNT or SUM are applied.

SELECT and JOIN operations involve comparisons; if NULL

values are present, the results may become unpredictable.
Moreover, NULLs can have multiple interpretations, such as the
following:
The attribute does not apply to this tuple. For example,
Visa_status may not apply to U.S. students.
The attribute value for this tuple is unknown. For example, the
Date_of_birth may be unknown for an employee.
The value is known but absent; that is, it has not been
recorded yet. For example, the Home_Phone_Number for an
employee may exist, but may not be available and recorded yet.
Having the same representation for all NULLs compromises the
different meanings they may have. Therefore, we may state
another guideline.

Guideline 3
As much as possible, avoid placing attributes in a base relation
whose values may frequently be NULL.
If NULLs are unavoidable, make sure that they apply in
exceptional cases only.
For example, if only 15 percent of employees have individual
offices, 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

Generation of Spurious Tuples

Often, we may elect to split a “fat” relation into two relations, with
the intention of joining them together if needed. However,
applying a NATURAL JOIN may not yield the desired effect. On
the contrary, it will generate many more tuples and we cannot
recover the original table.
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.
Avoid relations that contain matching attributes that are not
(foreign key, primary key) combinations because joining on such
attributes may produce spurious tuples.

Summary and Discussion of Design Guidelines

We proposed informal guidelines for a good relational design.
The problems we pointed out, which can be detected without
additional tools of analysis, are as follows:
Anomalies that cause redundant work to be done during
insertion into and modification of a relation, and that may cause
accidental loss of information during a deletion from a relation
Waste of storage space due to NULLs and the difficulty of
performing selections, aggregation operations, and joins due to
NULL values
Generation of invalid and spurious data during joins on base
relations with matched attributes that may not represent a proper
(foreign key, primary key) relationship
The strategy for achieving a good design is to decompose a badly
designed relation appropriately.

Functional Dependencies
The single most important concept in relational schema design
theory is that of a functional dependency.

Definition of Functional Dependency

A functional dependency is a constraint between two sets of
attributes from the database. Suppose that our relational
database schema has n attributes A1, A2, ..., An.
If we think of the whole database as being described by a single
universal relation schema R = {A1, A2, ... , An}.
A functional dependency, denoted by X Y, between two sets

of attributes X and Y that are subsets of R, such that any two

tuples t1 and t2 in r that have t1[X] = t2[X], they must also have

t1[Y] = t2[Y].

This means that the values of the Y component of a tuple in r

depend on, or are determined by, the values of the X component;
We say that the values of the X component of a tuple uniquely (or
functionally) determine the values of the Y component.
We say that there is a functional dependency from X to Y, or that
Y is functionally dependent on X.
Functional dependency is represented as FD or f.d. The set of
attributes X is called the left-hand side of the FD, and Y is called
the right-hand side.

X functionally determines Y in a relation schema R if, and only if,

whenever two tuples of r(R) agree on their X-value, they must
necessarily agree on their Y-value.
If a constraint on R states that there cannot be more than one
tuple with a given X-value in any relation instance r(R)—that is, X
is a candidate key of R— this implies that X Y for any subset
of attributes Y of R.
If X is a candidate key of R, then XR.

If XY in R, this does not imply that YX in R.

A functional dependency is a property of the semantics or

meaning of the attributes.
Whenever the semantics of two sets of attributes in R indicate
that a functional dependency should hold, we specify the
dependency as a constraint.
Legal Relation States:
Relation extensions r(R) that satisfy the functional dependency
constraints are called legal relation states (or legal extensions)
of R.
Functional dependencies are used to describe further a relation
schema R by specifying constraints on its attributes that must
hold at all times.

Certain FDs can be specified without referring to a specific

relation, but as a property of those attributes given their
commonly understood meaning.
For example, {State, Driver_license_number} Ssn should hold
for any adult in the United States and hence should hold
whenever these attributes appear in a relation.
Consider the relation schema EMP_PROJ from the semantics of
the attributes and the relation, we know that the following
functional dependencies should hold:

a. SsnEname
b. Pnumber {Pname, Plocation}
c. {Ssn, Pnumber}Hours
A functional dependency is a property of the relation schema R,
not of a particular legal relation state r of R. Therefore, an FD
cannot be inferred automatically from a given relation extension r
but must be defined explicitly by someone who knows the
semantics of the attributes of R.

Teacher Course Text

Smith Data Structures Bartram
Smith Data Management Martin
Hall Compilers Hoffman
Brown Data Structures Horowitz

Example:

A B C D
a1 b1 c1 d1
a1 b2 c2 d2
a2 b2 c2 d3
a3 b3 c4 d3

The following FDs may hold because the four tuples in the
current extension have no violation of these constraints:
B C; C B; {A, B} C; {A, B} D; and {C, D} B

However, the following do not hold because we already have

violations of them in the given extension:
A B (tuples 1 and 2 violate this constraint);
B A (tuples 2 and 3 violate this constraint);
DC (tuples 3 and 4 violate it).
Diagrammatic notation for displaying FDs:
Each FD is displayed as a horizontal line. The left-hand-side
attributes of the FD are connected by vertical lines to the line
representing the FD, while the right-hand-side attributes are
connected by the lines with arrows pointing toward the attributes.

Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys

Normalization of data is a process of analyzing the given

relation schemas based on their FDs and primary keys to achieve
the desirable properties of
(1) minimizing redundancy and
(2) minimizing the insertion, deletion, and update anomalies.

It can be considered as a “filtering” or “purification” process to

make the design have successively better quality.
We assume that a set of functional dependencies is given for
each relation, and that each relation has a designated primary
key.
Each relation is then evaluated for adequacy and decomposed
further as needed to achieve higher normal forms, using the
normalization theory.
We focus on the first three normal forms for relation schemas and
the intuition behind them, and discuss how they were developed
historically.
More general definitions of these normal forms, which take into
account all candidate keys of a relation rather than just the
primary key.

Normalization of Relations
The normalization process, as first proposed by Codd (1972a),
takes a relation schema through a series of tests to certify
whether it satisfies a certain normal form.
The process, which proceeds in a top-down fashion by evaluating
each relation against the criteria for normal forms and
decomposing relations as necessary, can thus be considered as
relational design by analysis.
Initially, Codd proposed three normal forms, which he called first,
second, and third normal form.
A stronger definition of 3NF—called Boyce-Codd normal form
(BCNF)—was proposed later by Boyce and Codd. All these
normal forms are based on a single analytical tool: the
functional dependencies among the attributes of a relation.

The normalization procedure provides database designers with:

A formal framework for analyzing relation schemas based on their
keys and on the functional dependencies among their attributes.
A series of normal form tests that can be carried out on individual
relation schemas so that the relational database can be
normalized to any desired degree

Definition.
The normal form of a relation refers to the highest normal form
condition that it meets, and hence indicates the degree to which it
has been normalized.
Normal forms, when considered in isolation from other factors, do
not guarantee a good database design. It is generally not
sufficient to check separately that each relation schema in the
database is in a given normal form.
Rather, the process of normalization through decomposition must
also confirm the existence of additional properties that the
relational schemas, taken together, should possess. These would
include two properties:
The nonadditive join or lossless join property, which
guarantees that the spurious tuple generation problem does not
occur with respect to the relation schemas created after
decomposition.
The dependency preservation property, which ensures that
each functional dependency is represented in some individual
relation resulting after decomposition.

The nonadditive join property is extremely critical and must be

achieved at any cost.

Practical Use of Normal Forms

Most practical design projects acquire existing designs of
databases from previous designs, designs in legacy models, or
from existing files.
Normalization is carried out in practice so that the resulting
designs are of high quality and meet the desirable properties
stated previously.
Although several higher normal forms have been defined,
database design as practiced in industry today pays particular
attention to normalization only up to 3NF, BCNF, or at most 4NF.
Another point worth noting is that the database designers need
not normalize to the highest possible normal form. Relations may
be left in a lower normalization status, such as 2NF, for
performance reason.
Denormalization is the process of storing the join of higher
normal form relations as a base relation, which is in a lower
normal form.

Definitions of Keys and Attributes

Participating in Keys

Definition: A superkey of a relation schema R = {A1, A2, ... , An}

is a set of attributes S 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 anymore.
The difference between a key and a superkey is that a key has to
be minimal; that is, if we have a key
K = {A1, A2, ..., Ak} of R, then K – {Ai} is not a key of R for any
Ai, 1 ≤ i ≤k
{Ssn} is a key for EMPLOYEE, whereas {Ssn}, {Ssn, Ename},
{Ssn, Ename, Bdate}, and any set of attributes that includes Ssn
are all superkeys.
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.

In a practical relational database, each relation schema must

have a primary key. If no candidate key is known for a relation,
the entire relation can be treated as a default superkey. In the
Table EMPLOYEE, {Ssn} is the only candidate key for
EMPLOYEE, so it is also the primary key.

Definition:
An attribute of relation schema R is called a prime attribute of R
if it is a member of some candidate key of R.
An attribute is called nonprime if it is not a prime attribute—that
is, if it is not a member of any candidate key, both Ssn and
Pnumber are prime attributes of WORKS_ON, whereas other
attributes of WORKS_ON are nonprime.
We now present the first three normal forms: 1NF, 2NF, and 3NF.
As we shall see, 2NF and 3NF attack different problems.
First Normal Form
First normal form (1NF) is now considered to be part of the
formal definition of a relation in the basic (flat) relational model.
It states that:
1. the domain of an attribute must include only atomic (simple,
indivisible) values and
2. that the value of any attribute in a tuple must be a single
value from the domain of that attribute.
Hence, 1NF disallows having a set of values, a tuple of values, or
a combination of both as an attribute value for a single tuple. In
other words, 1NF disallows relations within relations or relations
as attribute values within tuples.
The only attribute values permitted by 1NF are single atomic (or
indivisible) values.

Consider the DEPARTMENT relation schema, whose primary key

is Dnumber, and suppose that we extend it by including the
Dlocations attribute.
We assume that each department can have a number of
locations.
As we can see, this is not in 1NF because Dlocations is not an
atomic attribute. There are two ways we look at the Dlocations
attribute:
The domain of Dlocations contains atomic values, but some
tuples can have a set of these values. In this case, Dlocations is
not functionally dependent on the primary key Dnum.

First normal form also disallows multi-valued attributes that are

themselves composite. These are called nested relations
because each tuple can have a relation within it.
This procedure can be applied recursively to a relation with
multiple-level nesting to unnest the relation into a set of 1NF
relations. This is useful in converting an unnormalized relation
schema with many levels of nesting into 1NF relations.

Second Normal Form

Second normal form (2NF) is based on the concept of full
functional dependency.
Functional Dependency:
The attribute B is fully functionally dependent on the attribute A if
each value of A determines one and only one value of B.
Example: PROJ_NUM PROJ_NAME
In this case, the attribute PROJ_NUM is known as the
determinant attribute and the attribute PROJ_NAME is known as
the dependent attribute.
Generalized Definition:
Attribute A determines attribute B ( that is B is functionally
dependent on A) if all of the rows in the table that agree in value
for attribute A also agree in value for attribute B.

Fully functional dependency (composite key)

If attribute B is functionally dependent on a composite key A but
not on any subset of that composite key, the attribute B is fully
functionally dependent on A.
Partial Dependency:
When there is a functional dependence in which the determinant
is only part of the primary key, then there is a partial dependency.
For example if (A, B)  (C, D) and B C and (A, B) is the
primary key, then the functional dependence B C is a partial
dependency.
{Ssn, Pnumber} Hours is a full dependency
(neither Ssn Hours nor PnumberHours holds).
However, the dependency {Ssn, Pnumber}Ename is partial
because SsnEname holds.
Transitive Dependency:

When there are the following functional dependencies such that

XY, Y Z and X is the primary key, then X Z is a transitive
dependency because X determines the value of Z via Y.
Whenever a functional dependency is detected amongst non-
prime, there is a transitive dependency.

Definition. A relation schema R is in 2NF if every nonprime

attribute A in R is fully functionally dependent on the primary key
of R.
The test for 2NF involves testing for functional dependencies
whose left-hand side attributes are part of the primary key.
If the primary key contains a single attribute, the test need not be
applied at all.
If a relation schema is not in 2NF, it can be second normalized or
2NF normalized into a number of 2NF relations in which nonprime
attributes are associated only with the part of the primary key on
which they are fully functionally dependent.

Third Normal Form

Third normal form (3NF) is based on the concept of transitive
dependency.
A functional dependency XY in a relation schema R is a
transitive dependency if there exists a set of attributes Z in R
that is neither a candidate key nor a subset of any key of R, and
both XZ and ZY hold.

Definition. According to Codd’s original definition, a relation

schema R is in 3NF if it satisfies 2NF and no nonprime attribute of
R is transitively dependent on the primary key.

General Definitions of Second and Third Normal Forms

In general, we want to design our relation schemas so that they
have neither partial nor transitive dependencies because these
types of dependencies cause the update anomalies seen
previously.
The steps for normalization into 3NF relations that we have
discussed so far disallow partial and transitive dependencies on
the primary key. The normalization procedure described so far is
useful for analysis in practical situations for a given database
where primary keys have already been defined.
Summary of Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys and
Corresponding Normalization
Normal Form Test Remedy (Normalization)
First (1NF) Relation should have no Form new relations for each
multivalued attributes or nested multivalued attribute or nested
relations relation.
Second (2NF) For relations where primary key Decompose and set up a new
contains multiple attributes, no relation for each partial key
nonkey attribute should be with its dependent attribute(s).
functionally dependent on a part Make sure to keep a relation
of the primary key. with the original primary key
and any attributes that are fully
functionally dependent on it.

Third (3NF) Relation should not have a Decompose and setup a

nonkey attribute functionally relation that includes the
determined by another nonkey nonkey attribute(s) that
attribute (or by a set of nonkey
functionally determine(s) other
attributes). That is, there should
be no transitive dependency of a nonkey attribute(s).
nonkey attribute on the primary
key

As a general definition of prime attribute, an attribute that is part

of any candidate key will be considered as prime. Partial and full
functional dependencies and transitive dependencies will now be
considered with respect to all candidate keys of a relation.
Prime attributes are part of any candidate key
Non-prime attribute are not.

General Definition of Second Normal Form

A relation schema R is in second normal form (2NF) if every
nonprime attribute A in R is not partially dependent on any key of
R.
The test for 2NF involves testing for functional dependencies
whose left-hand side attributes are part of the primary key. If the
primary key contains a single attribute, the test need not be
applied at all.

General Definition of Third Normal Form

A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if, whenever a
nontrivial functional dependency XA holds in R, either
(a) X is a superkey of R, or
(b) A is a prime attribute of R.

Interpreting the General Definition of Third Normal Form

A relation schema R violates the general definition of 3NF if a
functional dependency X A holds in R that does not meet either
condition—meaning that it violates both conditions (a) and (b) of
3NF. This can occur due to two types of problematic functional
dependencies:
A nonprime attribute determines another nonprime attribute. Here
we typically have a transitive dependency that violates 3NF.
A proper subset of a key of R functionally determines a nonprime
attribute. Here we have a partial dependency that violates 3NF
(and also 2NF).
Therefore, we can state a general alternative definition of 3NF
as follows:
Alternative Definition. A relation schema R is in 3NF if every
nonprime attribute of R meets both of the following conditions:
It is fully functionally dependent on every key of R.
It is nontransitively dependent on every key of R.

Boyce-Codd Normal Form

Boyce-Codd normal form (BCNF) was proposed as a simpler

form of 3NF, but it was found to be stricter than 3NF.
Definition: A relation schema R is in BCNF if whenever a
nontrivial functional dependency X A holds in R, then X is a
superkey of R. In practice, most relation schemas that are in 3NF
are also in BCNF.
Only if XA holds in a relation schema R with X not being a
superkey and A being a prime attribute will R be in 3NF but not in
BCNF. Ideally, relational database design should strive to achieve
BCNF or 3NF for every relation schema.
Conversion to First Normal Form:
A relational table must not contain repeating groups. A repeating
group derives its name from the fact that a group of multiple
entries of the same type can exist for any single key attribute
occurrence.
If repeating groups do exist, they must be eliminated by making
sure that each row defines a single entity.
Normalization starts with a simple three-step procedure:
Step 1: Eliminate the Repeating Groups:
1. Represent the data in a tabular format, where each cell has
a single value and there are no repeating groups.
2. To eliminate repeating groups: eliminate the nulls by making
sure that each repeating group contains appropriate data
value.
Step 2: Identify the Primary Key:
To have a proper Primary Key, it should uniquely identify any
attribute value.
In our example, we can see that PROJ_NUM value 15,
identifies any one of 5 employees.
EMP_NUM can also identify multiple rows, since one employee
can work in more than one project.
In this case, the only primary key possible is a combination of
PROJ_NUM and EMP_NUM.
 Step 3:
Identify all dependencies:
PROJ_NUM and EMP_NUM PROJ_NAME, EMP_NAME,
JOB_CLASS, CHG_HOUR, HOURS.
Additional dependencies:
PROJ_NUM PROJ_NAME
EMP_NUM EMP_NAME, JOB_CLASS, CHG_HOUR
JOB_CLASS CHG_HOUR

This dependency exists between two nonprime attributes, which

signals a transitive dependency.

Conversion to Second Normal Form:

Conversion to 2NF only occurs when the 1NF has a composite
primary key. If the 1NF has a single-attribute primary key, then
the table is automatically 2NF.

Step 1: Make new tables to Eliminate Partial Dependencies

For each component of the primary key that acts as a determinant
in a partial dependency, create a new table with a copy of that
component as the primary key. It is also important that the
determinant attribute remains in the original table because they
will be the foreign keys that will relate the new tables to the
original one.
Step 2: Reassign Corresponding Dependent Attributes
Determine all attributes that are dependent in the partial
dependencies. These are removed from the original table and
placed in the new table with their determinant.
Any attributes that are dependent in a partial dependency will
remain in the original table.
Now, we have 3 tables:
PROJECT(PROJ_NUM, PROJ_NAME)
EMPLOYEE(EMP_NUM, EMP_NAME, JOB_CLASS,
CHG_HOURS)
ASSIGNMENT(PROJ_NUM, EMP_NUM, ASSIGN_HOURS)

Conversion to third Normal Form:

Step 1: Make new tables to eliminate transitive dependencies.
For every transitive dependency, write a copy if its determinant as
a primary key for a new table. It is also important that the
determinant remains in the original table to serve as a foreign key.

Step 2:
Identify the attributes that are dependent on each determinant
and place them in the new tables with their determinant and
remove them from their original table.
In our example, remove CHG_HOUR from EMPLOYEE
EMP_NUMEMP_NAME, JOB_CLASS
So now our design becomes:

PROJECT(PROJ_NUM, PROJ_NAME)
EMPLOYEE(EMP_NUM, EMP_NAME, JOB_ID)
JOB(JOB_ID, JOB_CLASS, CHG_HOUR)
ASSIGNMENT(PROJ_NUM, EMP_NUM, ASSIGN_HOURS)

Consider the table below, describing a badly designed database.

Follow the steps defined above and seen in class to make the
design 3NF compliant.
StdNo StdCity StdClass OfferNo OffTerm OffYear EnrGrade CourseNo CrsDescr
S1 Seattle JUN 01 FALL 2013 3.5 C1 DB
02 FALL 2013 3.3 C2 VB
S2 Bothell JUN 03 SPRING 2014 3.1 C3 OO
02 FALL 2013 3.4 C2 VB