Advanced Databases

Session 5
Academic year 2023-2024

Professor: Luis Angel Galindo

Combining schemas
• If we combine (natural join) instructor and department into in_dep, there is repetition of
information

• Consider combining relations

sec_class(sec_id, building, room_number) and section(course_id, sec_id, semester, year)
• into one relation No repetition in this case!!
section(course_id, sec_id, semester, year, building, room_number)
Decomposition
• The only way to avoid the repetition-of-information problem in the in_dep schema is
to decompose it into two schemas – instructor and department schemas.
• Not all decompositions are good. Suppose we decompose

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

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

• If there are two employees with the same name, we cannot reconstruct the original
employee relation => this is a lossy decomposition!
Lossy decomposition
Lossless decomposition
• Decomposition of R = (A, B, C)
R1 = (A, B) R2 = (B, C)
Normalization
• Decide whether a particular relation R is in “good” form.
• The main objective of normalization is to reduce redundancy and improve data
integrity, ensuring that information is stored in a logical and efficient manner.
• In the case that a relation R is not in “good” form, decompose it into set of relations
{R1, R2, ..., Rn} such that
• Each relation is in good form
• The decomposition is a lossless decomposition
• Based on:
• Functional dependencies
• Multivalued dependencies
 Normalization based on
Functional Dependencies
Functional dependencies
• There are usually a variety of constraints (rules) on the data in the real world.
• For example, in a university database are:
• Students and instructors are uniquely identified by their ID.
• Each student and instructor has only one name.
• Each instructor and student is (primarily) associated with only one department.
• Each department has only one value for its budget, and only one associated
building.
• Legal instance: An instance of a relation that satisfies all such real-world constraints
• A legal instance of a DB is one where all the relation instances are legal instances
• Require that the value for a certain set of attributes determines uniquely the value for
another set of attributes. This is expressed as "X determines Y" or "X -> Y".
• A functional dependency is a generalization of the notion of a key!
Functional dependencies
• Let R be a relation schema
a Í R and b Í R
• The functional dependency
a®b
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 a, they also agree on the attributes b. That is,

t1[a] = t2 [a] Þ t1[b ] = t2 [b ]

• Example: Consider r(A,B ) with the following instance of r.

1 4
1 5 On this instance, B ® A hold; A ® B does NOT hold
3 7
Closure of a set of Functional dependencies
• Given a set F set of functional dependencies, there are certain other functional
dependencies that are logically implied by F.
• If A ® B and B ® C, then we can infer that A ® C

• The set of all functional dependencies logically implied by F is the closure of F.

• We denote the closure of F by F+.
• We can compute F+, the closure of F, by repeatedly applying Armstrong’s Axioms:
• Reflexive rule: if b Í a, then a ® b
• Augmentation rule: if a ® b, then g a ® g b
• Transitivity rule: if a ® b, and b ® g, then a ® g
• These rules are
• Sound -- generate only functional dependencies that actually hold, and
• Complete -- generate all functional dependencies that hold.
Closure of a set of Functional dependencies
• The following additional rules can be inferred from Armstrong’s Axioms

• Union rule: If a ® b holds and a ® g holds, then a ® b g holds.

• Decomposition rule: If a ® b g holds, then a ® b holds and a ® g holds.
• Pseudotransitivity rule: If a ® b holds and g b ® d holds, then a g ® d holds.
Example of F+
• R = (A, B, C, G, H, I) F={A®B
A®C
CG ® H
CG ® I
B ® H}

• Some members of F+
• A®H
• by transitivity from A ® B and B ® H
• AG ® I
• by augmenting A ® C with G, to get AG ® CG
and then transitivity with CG ® I
• CG ® HI
• by augmenting CG ® I to infer CG ® CGI,
and augmenting of CG ® H to infer CGI ® HI, and then transitivity
 Keys and Functional dependencies
• K is a superkey for relation schema R if and only if K ® R
• K is a candidate key for R if and only if The key difference between a superkey and a candidate key is
that a superkey may contain additional attributes that are not
• K ® R, and necessary for unique identification!
• for no a Ì K, a ® R
• Functional dependencies allow us to express constraints that cannot be expressed
using superkeys. Consider the schema:
in_dep (ID, name, salary, dept_name, building, budget ).
We expect these functional dependencies to hold: but would not expect the following to hold:
dept_name® building dept_name ® salary
ID à building

{ID, Name} Superkey

Student (ID, Name, Address, Phone)
ID is a candidate key because it’s a minimal
superkey
Trivial Functional dependencies
• A functional dependency is trivial if it is satisfied by all instances of a relation
• Example:
• ID, name ® ID
• name ® name
• In general, a ® b is trivial if b Í a
Lossless Decomposition
• Use functional dependencies to show when certain decomposition are lossless
• For the case of R = (R1, R2), a decomposition of R into R1 and R2 is lossless
decomposition if at least one of the following dependencies is in F+:
• R1 Ç R2 ® R1
• R1 Ç 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
• Example: R = (A, B, C) F = {A ® B, B ® C)

• R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C) R1 = (A, B), R2 = (A, C)

• Lossless decomposition: Lossless decomposition:
R1 Ç R2 = {B} and B ® BC R1 Ç R2 = {A} and A ® AB
B ® BC is the same as B ® {B, C}
Dependency preservation
• Testing functional dependency constraints each time the database is updated can be
costly
• It is useful to design the database in a way that constraints can be tested efficiently

• If testing a functional dependency can be done by considering just one relation, then
the cost of testing this constraint is low

• When decomposing a relation it is possible that it is no longer possible to do the

testing without having to perform a Cartesian Product

• A decomposition that makes it computationally hard to enforce functional

dependency is said to be NOT dependency preserving
Dependency preservation. Example
• Consider a schema:
dept_advisor(s_ID, i_ID, dept_name)
• With function dependencies:
i_ID ® dept_name
s_ID, dept_name ® i_ID
• In the above design we are forced to repeat the department name once for each time
an instructor participates in a dept_advisor relationship.
• To fix this, we need to decompose dept_advisor
• Any decomposition will not include all the attributes in
s_ID, dept_name ® i_ID
• Thus, the composition NOT be dependency preserving
Normal Forms
Boyce-Codd
• 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
a®b
where a Í R and b Í R, at least one of the following holds:
• a ® b is trivial (i.e., b Í a)
• a is a superkey for R
• The schema in_dep (ID, name, salary, dept_name, building, budget ) is not in BCNF
because :
• dept_name® building, budget
• holds on in_dep, but
• dept_name is not a superkey
• When decompose in_dept into instructor and department
• Instructor (ID, name, salary, dept_name) is in BCNF
• Department (dept_name, building, budget) is in BCNF
Decomposing a schema in BCNF
• Let R be a schema which is not in BCNF. Let a ®b be the functional dependency
that causes a violation of BCNF.
• We decompose R into:
• (a U b )
• (R-(b-a))
• In our example of in_dep,
• a = dept_name
• b = building, budget
and in_dep is replaced by
• (a U b ) = ( dept_name, building, budget )
• ( R - ( b - a ) ) = ( ID, name, dept_name, salary )
Decomposing. (Not) Preserving
dependencies
• R = (A, B, C)
F = {A ® B, B ® C)
• R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
• Lossless-join decomposition:
R1 Ç R2 = {B} and B ® BC
• Dependency preserving
• R1 = (A, B), R2 = (A, C)
• Lossless-join decomposition:
R1 Ç R2 = {A} and A ® AB
• Not dependency preserving
(cannot check B ® C without computing R1 R2)
Preserving dependencies in BCNF
• It is not always possible to achieve both BCNF and dependency preservation
• Consider a schema:
dept_advisor(s_ID, i_ID, dept_name)
• With function dependencies:
i_ID ® dept_name
s_ID, dept_name ® i_ID
• dept_advisor is not in BCNF
• i_ID is not a superkey.
• Any decomposition of dept_advisor will not include all the attributes in
s_ID, dept_name ® i_ID
• Thus, the composition is NOT be dependency preserving
Third Normal Form (3NF)
• A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if for all:
a ® b in F+

at least one of the following holds:

• a ® b is trivial (i.e., b Î a)
• a is a superkey for R
• Each attribute A in b – a is contained in a candidate key for R.
(NOTE: each attribute may be in a different candidate key)
• If a relation is in BCNF it is in 3NF (since in BCNF one of the first two conditions above
must hold).
• Third condition is a minimal relaxation of BCNF to ensure dependency preservation
3NF example
• Consider a schema:
dept_advisor(s_ID, i_ID, dept_name)
• With function dependencies:
i_ID ® dept_name
s_ID, dept_name ® i_ID
• Two candidate keys = {s_ID, dept_name}, {s_ID, i_ID }
• We have seen before that dept_advisor is not in BCNF
• However it is in 3NF
• s_ID, dept_name is a superkey
• i_ID ® dept_name and i_ID is NOT a superkey, but:
{ dept_name} – {i_ID } = {dept_name } and
dept_name is contained in a candidate key
Redundancy in 3NF
• Consider the schema R below, which is in 3NF
• R = (J, K, L )
• F = {JK ® L, L ® K }
• And an instance table:

• What is wrong with the table?

Repetition of information
Need to use null values (e.g., to represent the relationship l2, k2
where there is no corresponding value for J)
BCNF vs 3NF
• Advantages to 3NF over BCNF
• It is always possible to obtain a 3NF design without sacrificing lossless or
dependency preservation.
• Disadvantages to 3NF
• We may have to use null values to represent some of the possible meaningful
relationships among data items.
• There is the problem of repetition of information.
How good is BCNF
• There are database schemas in BCNF that do not seem to be sufficiently normalized
• Consider a relation
inst_info (ID, child_name, phone)
• where an instructor may have more than one phone and can have multiple children
• Instance of inst_info

• There are no non-trivial functional dependencies and therefore the relation is in BCNF
• Insertion anomalies – i.e., if we add a phone 981-992-3443 to 99999, we need to add
two tuples
(99999, David, 981-992-3443)
(99999, William, 981-992-3443)
Higher NF
• Based on the previous example

• It is better to decompose inst_info into:

• inst_child:

• inst_phone:

We need for higher normal forms, such as Fourth Normal Form (4NF)!!
 Normalization based on
Multivalued Dependencies
Multivalued Dependencies
• Let R be a relation schema and let a Í R and b Í R. The multivalued dependency
a ®® b
holds on R if in any legal relation r(R), for all pairs for tuples t1 and t2 in r such that t1[a]
= t2 [a], there exist tuples t3 and t4 in r such that:
t1[a] = t2 [a] = t3 [a] = t4 [a]
t3[b] = t1 [b]
t3[R – b] = t2[R – b]
t4 [b] = t2[b]
t4[R – b] = t1[R – b]
Multivalued Dependencies
• Let R be a relation schema with a set of attributes that are partitioned into 3
nonempty subsets.
Y, Z, W
• We say that Y ®® Z (Y multidetermines Z )
if and only if for all possible relations r (R )
< y1, z1, w1 > Î r and < y1, z2, w2 > Î r
then
< y1, z1, w2 > Î r and < y1, z2, w1 > Î r
• Since the behavior of Z and W are identical it follows that
Y ®® Z if Y ®® W
Multivalued Dependencies. Example
• Suppose inst_child(ID, child_name) and inst_phone(ID, phone_number)
• If we were to combine these schemas to get inst_info(ID, child_name, phone_number)
• Example data:
(99999, David, 512-555-1234)
(99999, David, 512-555-4321)
(99999, William, 512-555-1234)
(99999, William, 512-555-4321)
• ID ®® child_name
ID ®® phone_number
• The above formal definition is supposed to formalize the notion that given a particular
value of Y (ID) it has associated with it a set of values of Z (child_name) and a set of
values of W (phone_number), and these two sets are in some sense independent of
each other.
• Note:
• If Y ® Z then Y ®® Z
DB Design process
1NF
• Domain is atomic if its elements are considered to be indivisible units
• Set of names, composite attributes, identification numbers like CS101 that can be
broken up into parts are examples of non-atomic domains
• 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 storage of data
• 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.
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.
E-R Model and Normalization
• When an E-R diagram is carefully designed, identifying all entities correctly, the tables
generated from the E-R diagram should not need further normalization.
• However, in a real (imperfect) design, there can be functional dependencies from
non-key attributes of an entity to other attributes of the entity
• Example: an employee entity with
• attributes
department_name and building,
• functional dependency
department_name® building
• Good design would have made department an entity
• Functional dependencies from non-key attributes of a relationship set possible, but
rare --- most relationships are binary
Denormalization for performance
• May want to use non-normalized schema for performance
• For example, displaying prereqs along with course_id, and title requires join of course
with prereq
• Alternative 1: Use denormalized relation containing attributes of course as well as
prereq with all above attributes
• faster lookup
• extra space and extra execution time for updates
• extra coding work for programmer and possibility of error in extra code
• Alternative 2: use a materialized view defined a course prereq
• Benefits and drawbacks same as above, except no extra coding work for
programmer and avoids possible errors
Other design issues
• Some aspects of database design are not caught by normalization
• Examples of bad database design, to be avoided:
Instead of earnings (company_id, year, amount ), use
• earnings_2004, earnings_2005, earnings_2006, etc., all on the schema (company_id,
earnings).
• Above are in BCNF, but make querying across years difficult and needs new
table each year
• company_year (company_id, earnings_2004, earnings_2005,
earnings_2006)
• Also in BCNF, but also makes querying across years difficult and requires new
attribute each year.
• Is an example of a crosstab, where values for one attribute become column
names
• Used in spreadsheets and in data analysis tools
Annex
Functional Dependency Theory
Attribute closure
Closure of Attribute Sets
• Given a set of attributes a, define the closure of a under F (denoted by a +) as the set
of attributes that are functionally determined by a under F
• 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 Í AGBC)
4. result = ABCGHI (CG ® I and CG Í AGBCH)
Use of closure of attributes
• Testing for superkey:
• To test if a is a superkey, we compute a+, and check if a+ contains all attributes of
R.
• Testing functional dependencies
• To check if a functional dependency a ® b holds (or, in other words, is in F+), just
check if b Í a+.
• That is, we compute a+ by using attribute closure, and then check if it contains b.
• Computing closure of F
• For each g Í R, we find the closure g+, and for each S Í g+, we output a functional
dependency g ® S.
• Is AG a candidate key?
1. Is AG a super key?
1. Does AG ® R? == Is R Ê (AG)+
Canonical cover
Canonical cover
• Suppose that we have a set of functional dependencies F on a relation schema.
Whenever a user performs an update on the relation, the database system must
ensure that the update does not violate any functional dependencies; that is, all the
functional dependencies in F are satisfied in the new database state.
• If an update violates any functional dependencies in the set F, the system must roll
back the update.
• We can reduce the effort spent in checking for violations by testing a simplified set of
functional dependencies that has the same closure as the given set.
• This simplified set is termed the canonical cover
• To define canonical cover we must first define extraneous attributes.
• An attribute of a functional dependency in F is extraneous if we can remove it
without changing F +
Extraneous attributes
• Removing an attribute from the left side of a functional dependency could make it a
stronger constraint.
• For example, if we have AB ® C and remove B, we get the possibly stronger result
A ® C. It may be stronger because A ® C logically implies AB ® C, but AB ® C
does not, on its own, logically imply A ® C

• But, depending on what our set F of functional dependencies happens to be, we may
be able to remove B from AB ® C safely.
• For example, suppose that
• F = {AB ® C, A ® D, D ® C}
• Then we can show that F logically implies A ® C, making extraneous in AB ® C.
Extraneous attributes
• Removing an attribute from the right side of a functional dependency could make it a
weaker constraint.
• For example, if we have AB ® CD and remove C, we get the possibly weaker
result AB ® D. It may be weaker because using just AB ® D, we can no longer
infer AB ® C.
• But, depending on what our set F of functional dependencies happens to be, we may
be able to remove C from AB ® CD safely.
• For example, suppose that
F = { AB ® CD, A ® C}
• Then we can show that even after replacing AB ® CD by AB ® D, we can still infer
$AB ® C and thus AB ® CD.
Extraneous attributes
• An attribute of a functional dependency in F is extraneous if we can remove it without
changing F +
• Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional dependency a ® b in
F.
• Remove from the left side: Attribute A is extraneous in a if
• A Î a and
• F logically implies (F – {a ® b}) È {(a – A) ® b}.
• Remove from the right side: Attribute A is extraneous in b if
• A Î b and
• The set of functional dependencies
(F – {a ® b}) È {a ®(b – 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
Extraneous attributes
• An attribute of a functional dependency in F is extraneous if we can remove it without
changing F +
• Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional dependency a ® b in
F.
• Remove from the left side: Attribute A is extraneous in a if
• A Î a and
• F logically implies (F – {a ® b}) È {(a – A) ® b}.
• Remove from the right side: Attribute A is extraneous in b if
• A Î b and
• The set of functional dependencies
(F – {a ® b}) È {a ®(b – 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
How to determine if a Extraneous attribute is
• Let R be a relation schema and let F be a set of functional dependencies that hold
on R . Consider an attribute in the functional dependency a ® b.
• To test if attribute A Î b is extraneous in b
• Consider the set:
F' = (F – {a ® b}) È {a ®(b – A)},
• check that a+ contains A; if it does, A is extraneous in b
• To test if attribute A Î a is extraneous in a
• Let g = a – {A}. Check if g ® b can be inferred from F.
• Compute g+ using the dependencies in F
• If g+ includes all attributes in b then , A is extraneous in a
Extraneous attribute. Example
• Let F = {AB ® CD, A ® E, E ® C }
• To check if C is extraneous in AB ® CD, we:
• Compute the attribute closure of AB under F' = {AB ® D, A ® E, E ® C}
• The closure is ABCDE, which includes CD
• This implies that C is extraneous
Canonical cover
• A canonical cover for F is a set of dependencies Fc such that
• F logically implies all dependencies in Fc, and
• Fc logically implies all dependencies in F, and
• No functional dependency in Fc contains an extraneous attribute, and
• Each left side of functional dependency in Fc is unique. That is, there are no two
dependencies in Fc
• a1 ® b1 and a2 ® b2 such that
• a1 = a2
Canonical cover. Example
• 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
Dependency Preservation
Dependency preservation
• Let Fi be the set of dependencies F + that include only attributes in Ri.
• A decomposition is dependency preserving, if (F1 È F2 È … È Fn )+ = F +
• Testing for dependency preservation takes exponential time.
• If a decomposition is NOT dependency preserving then checking updates for violation
of functional dependencies may require computing joins, which is expensive.
• Let F be the set of dependencies on schema R and let R1 .. Rn be a decomposition of R.
• The restriction of F to Ri is the set Fi of all functional dependencies in F + that include
only attributes of Ri.
• Since all functional dependencies in a restriction involve attributes of only one
relation schema, it is possible to test such a dependency for satisfaction by checking
only one relation.
• The definition of restriction uses all dependencies in F +, not just those in F.
• The set of restrictions F1 .. Fn is the set of functional dependencies that can be checked
efficiently.
Dependency preservation. Example
• R = (A, B, C )
F = {A ® B
B ® C}
Key = {A}
• R is not in BCNF
• Decomposition R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
• R1 and R2 in BCNF
• Lossless-join decomposition
• Dependency preserving
Multivalued Dependency Theory
Theory of MVDs
• From the definition of multivalued dependency, we can derive the following rule:
• If a ® b, then a ®® b every functional dependency is a multivalued dependency!
• The closure D+ of D is the set of all functional and multivalued dependencies logically
implied by D.
• We can compute D+ from D, using the formal definitions of functional
dependencies and multivalued dependencies.
• We can manage with such reasoning for very simple multivalued dependencies,
which seem to be most common in practice
• For complex dependencies, it is better to reason about sets of dependencies
using a system of inference rules
• Use of multivalued dependencies :
1. To test relations to determine whether they are legal under a given set of
functional and multivalued dependencies
2. To specify constraints on the set of legal relations.
4NF
• A relation schema R is in 4NF with respect to a set D of functional and multivalued
dependencies if for all multivalued dependencies in D+ of the form a ®® b, where a
Í R and b Í R, at least one of the following hold:
• a ®® b is trivial (i.e., b Í a or a È b = R)
• a is a superkey for schema R
• If a relation is in 4NF it is in BCNF!!

Restriction of MVD
• The restriction of D to Ri is the set Di consisting of
• All functional dependencies in D+ that include only attributes of Ri
• All multivalued dependencies of the form
a ®® (b Ç Ri)
where a Í Ri and a ®® b is in D+
4NF. Example
• R =(A, B, C, G, H, I) F ={ A ®® B
B ®® HI
CG ®® H }
• R is not in 4NF since A ®® B and A is not a superkey for R
• Decomposition
a) R1 = (A, B) (R1 is in 4NF)
b) R2 = (A, C, G, H, I) (R2 is not in 4NF, decompose into R3 and R4)
c) R3 = (C, G, H) (R3 is in 4NF)
d) R4 = (A, C, G, I) (R4 is not in 4NF, decompose into R5 and R6)
• A ®® B and B ®® HI è A ®® HI, (MVD transitivity), and
• and hence A ®® I (MVD restriction to R4)
e) R5 = (A, I) (R5 is in 4NF)
f)R6 = (A, C, G) (R6 is in 4NF)