1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Navathe
Introduction
Data:
Known facts that can be recorded and have an implicit meaning.
Mini-world:
Some part of the real world about which data is stored in a
Data Warehousing and Data Mining – a very major area for future
Query 8. For each employee, retrieve the employee’s first and last name
and the first and last name of his or her immediate supervisor.
SELECT E.Fname, E.Lname, S.Fname, S.Lname
FROM EMPLOYEE AS E, EMPLOYEE AS S
WHERE E.Super_ssn=S.Ssn;
Recommended practice to abbreviate names and to
prefix same or similar attribute from multiple tables.
implementations
deleted
Referential integrity should be enforced
INCORRECT QUERY:
SELECT Dno, COUNT (*)
FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE Salary>40000
GROUP BY Dno
HAVING COUNT (*) > 5;
subclasses
Option 8B: Multiple relations-Subclass relations only
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 133
EXAMPLE OF AN UPDATE
ANOMALY
Consider the relation:
EMP_PROJ(Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname,
No_hours)
Update Anomaly:
Changing the name of project number P1 from
“Billing” to “Customer-Accounting” may cause this
update to be made for all 100 employees working
on project P1.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 134
EXAMPLE OF AN INSERT
ANOMALY
Consider the relation:
EMP_PROJ(Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname,
No_hours)
Insert Anomaly:
Cannot insert a project unless an employee is
assigned to it.
Conversely
Cannot insert an employee unless an he/she is
assigned to a project.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 135
EXAMPLE OF A DELETE
ANOMALY
Consider the relation:
EMP_PROJ(Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname,
No_hours)
Delete Anomaly:
When a project is deleted, it will result in deleting
all the employees who work on that project.
Alternately, if an employee is the sole employee
on a project, deleting that employee would result in
deleting the corresponding project.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 136
Figure 14.3 Two relation schemas
suffering from update anomalies
Figure 14.3
Two relation schemas
suffering from update
anomalies. (a)
EMP_DEPT and (b)
EMP_PROJ.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 137
2. Functional Dependencies
Functional dependencies (FDs)
Are used to specify formal measures of the
"goodness" of relational designs
And keys are used to define normal forms for
relations
Are constraints that are derived from the meaning
and interrelationships of the data attributes
A set of attributes X functionally determines a set
of attributes Y if the value of X determines a
unique value for Y
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 138
2.1 Defining Functional
Dependencies
X Y holds if whenever two tuples have the same value
for X, they must have the same value for Y
For any two tuples t1 and t2 in any relation instance r(R): If
t1[X]=t2[X], then t1[Y]=t2[Y]
X Y in R specifies a constraint on all relation instances
r(R)
Written as X Y; can be displayed graphically on a
relation schema as in Figures. ( denoted by the arrow: ).
FDs are derived from the real-world constraints on the
attributes
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 139
Examples of FD constraints (1)
Social security number determines employee
name
SSN ENAME
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 140
Examples of FD constraints (2)
An FD is a property of the attributes in the
schema R
The constraint must hold on every relation
instance r(R)
If K is a key of R, then K functionally determines
all attributes in R
(since we never have two distinct tuples with
t1[K]=t2[K])
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 141
Defining FDs from instances
Note that in order to define the FDs, we need to
understand the meaning of the attributes involved
and the relationship between them.
An FD is a property of the attributes in the schema R
Given the instance (population) of a relation, all we
can conclude is that an FD may exist between
certain attributes.
What we can definitely conclude is – that certain
FDs do not exist because there are tuples that show
a violation of those dependencies.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 142
Figure 14.7 Ruling Out FDs
Note that given the state of the TEACH relation, we can
say that the FD: Text → Course may exist. However, the
FDs Teacher → Course, Teacher → Text and
Couse → Text are ruled out.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 143
Figure 14.8 What FDs may exist?
A relation R(A, B, C, D) with its extension.
Which FDs may exist in this relation?
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 144
3 Normal Forms Based on Primary
Keys
3.1 Normalization of Relations
3.2 Practical Use of Normal Forms
3.3 Definitions of Keys and Attributes
Participating in Keys
3.4 First Normal Form
3.5 Second Normal Form
3.6 Third Normal Form
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 145
3.1 Normalization of Relations (1)
Normalization:
The process of decomposing unsatisfactory "bad"
relations by breaking up their attributes into
smaller relations
Normal form:
Condition using keys and FDs of a relation to
certify whether a relation schema is in a particular
normal form
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 146
Normalization of Relations (2)
2NF, 3NF, BCNF
based on keys and FDs of a relation schema
4NF
based on keys, multi-valued dependencies : MVDs;
5NF
based on keys, join dependencies : JDs
Additional properties may be needed to ensure a
good relational design (lossless join, dependency
preservation; see Chapter 15)
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 147
3.2 Practical Use of Normal Forms
Normalization is carried out in practice so that the
resulting designs are of high quality and meet the
desirable properties
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 148
3.3 Definitions of Keys and
Attributes Participating in Keys (1)
A superkey of a relation schema R = {A1, A2, ....,
An} is a set of attributes S subset-of R with the
property that no two tuples t1 and t2 in any legal
relation state r of R will have t1[S] = t2[S]
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 149
Definitions of Keys and Attributes
Participating in Keys (2)
If a relation schema has more than one key, each
is called a candidate key.
One of the candidate keys is arbitrarily designated
to be the primary key, and the others are called
secondary keys.
A Prime attribute must be a member of some
candidate key
A Nonprime attribute is not a prime attribute—
that is, it is not a member of any candidate key.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 150
3.4 First Normal Form
Disallows
composite attributes
multivalued attributes
nested relations; attributes whose values for an
individual tuple are non-atomic
Considered to be part of the definition of a
relation
Most RDBMSs allow only those relations to be
defined that are in First Normal Form
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 151
Figure 14.9 Normalization into 1NF
Figure 14.9
Normalization into 1NF. (a) A
relation schema that is not in
1NF. (b) Sample state of
relation DEPARTMENT. (c)
1NF version of the same
relation with redundancy.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 152
Figure 14.10 Normalizing nested
relations into 1NF
Figure 14.10
Normalizing nested relations into 1NF. (a) Schema of the EMP_PROJ relation with a
nested relation attribute PROJS. (b) Sample extension of the EMP_PROJ relation
showing nested relations within each tuple. (c) Decomposition of EMP_PROJ into
relations EMP_PROJ1 and EMP_PROJ2 by propagating the primary key.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 153
3.5 Second Normal Form (1)
Uses the concepts of FDs, primary key
Definitions
Prime attribute: An attribute that is member of the primary
key K
Full functional dependency: a FD Y -> Z where removal
of any attribute from Y means the FD does not hold any
more
Examples:
{SSN, PNUMBER} -> HOURS is a full FD since neither SSN
-> HOURS nor PNUMBER -> HOURS hold
{SSN, PNUMBER} -> ENAME is not a full FD (it is called a
partial dependency ) since SSN -> ENAME also holds
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 154
Second Normal Form (2)
A relation schema R is in second normal form
(2NF) if every non-prime attribute A in R is fully
functionally dependent on the primary key
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 155
Figure 14.11 Normalizing into 2NF
and 3NF
Figure 14.11
Normalizing into 2NF and 3NF.
(a) Normalizing EMP_PROJ into
2NF relations. (b) Normalizing
EMP_DEPT into 3NF relations.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 156
Figure 14.12 Normalization into 2NF
and 3NF
Figure 14.12
Normalization into 2NF
and 3NF. (a) The LOTS
relation with its
functional dependencies
FD1 through FD4.
(b) Decomposing into
the 2NF relations LOTS1
and LOTS2. (c)
Decomposing LOTS1
into the 3NF relations
LOTS1A and LOTS1B.
(d) Progressive
normalization of LOTS
into a 3NF design.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 157
3.6 Third Normal Form (1)
Definition:
Transitive functional dependency: a FD X -> Z
that can be derived from two FDs X -> Y and Y ->
Z
Examples:
SSN -> DMGRSSN is a transitive FD
Since SSN -> DNUMBER and DNUMBER ->
DMGRSSN hold
SSN -> ENAME is non-transitive
Since there is no set of attributes X where SSN -> X
and X -> ENAME
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 158
Third Normal Form (2)
A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if it is
in 2NF and no non-prime attribute A in R is transitively
dependent on the primary key
R can be decomposed into 3NF relations via the process
of 3NF normalization
NOTE:
In X -> Y and Y -> Z, with X as the primary key, we consider
this a problem only if Y is not a candidate key.
When Y is a candidate key, there is no problem with the
transitive dependency .
E.g., Consider EMP (SSN, Emp#, Salary ).
Here, SSN -> Emp# -> Salary and Emp# is a candidate key.
Copyright © 2016 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 14- 159