Database normalization 1

Database normalization
In the field of relational database design, normalization is a systematic way of ensuring that a database structure is
suitable for general-purpose querying and free of certain undesirable characteristics—insertion, update, and deletion
anomalies—that could lead to a loss of data integrity.[1]
Edgar F. Codd, the inventor of the relational model, introduced the concept of normalization and what we now know
as the First Normal Form (1NF) in 1970.[2] Codd went on to define the Second Normal Form (2NF) and Third
Normal Form (3NF) in 1971,[3] and Codd and Raymond F. Boyce defined the Boyce-Codd Normal Form (BCNF) in
1974.[4] Higher normal forms were defined by other theorists in subsequent years, the most recent being the Sixth
normal form (6NF) introduced by Chris Date, Hugh Darwen, and Nikos Lorentzos in 2002.[5]
Informally, a relational database table (the computerized representation of a relation) is often described as
"normalized" if it is in the Third Normal Form.[6] Most 3NF tables are free of insertion, update, and deletion
anomalies, i.e. in most cases 3NF tables adhere to BCNF, 4NF, and 5NF (but typically not 6NF).
A standard piece of database design guidance is that the designer should create a fully normalized design; selective
denormalization can subsequently be performed for performance reasons.[7] However, some modeling disciplines,
such as the dimensional modeling approach to data warehouse design, explicitly recommend non-normalized
designs, i.e. designs that in large part do not adhere to 3NF.[8]

Objectives of normalization
A basic objective of the first normal form defined by Codd in 1970 was to permit data to be queried and manipulated
using a "universal data sub-language" grounded in first-order logic.[9] (SQL is an example of such a data
sub-language, albeit one that Codd regarded as seriously flawed.)[10] Querying and manipulating the data within an
unnormalized data structure, such as the following non-1NF representation of customers' credit card transactions,
involves more complexity than is really necessary:
Customer Jones Wilkins Stevens Transactions

Tr. Date Amount

ID

12890 14-Oct-2003 -87

12904 15-Oct-2003 -50

Tr. Date Amount

ID

12898 14-Oct-2003 -21

Database normalization 2

Tr. Date Amount

ID

12907 15-Oct-2003 -18

14920 20-Nov-2003 -70

15003 27-Nov-2003 -60

To each customer there corresponds a repeating group of transactions. The automated evaluation of any query
relating to customers' transactions therefore would broadly involve two stages:
1. Unpacking one or more customers' groups of transactions allowing the individual transactions in a group to be
examined, and
2. Deriving a query result based on the results of the first stage
For example, in order to find out the monetary sum of all transactions that occurred in October 2003 for all
customers, the system would have to know that it must first unpack the Transactions group of each customer, then
sum the Amounts of all transactions thus obtained where the Date of the transaction falls in October 2003.
One of Codd's important insights was that this structural complexity could always be removed completely, leading to
much greater power and flexibility in the way queries could be formulated (by users and applications) and evaluated
(by the DBMS). The normalized equivalent of the structure above would look like this:

Customer Tr. Date Amount

ID

Jones 12890 14-Oct-2003 -87

Jones 12904 15-Oct-2003 -50

Wilkins 12898 14-Oct-2003 -21

Stevens 12907 15-Oct-2003 -18

Stevens 14920 20-Nov-2003 -70

Stevens 15003 27-Nov-2003 -60

Now each row represents an individual credit card transaction, and the DBMS can obtain the answer of interest,
simply by finding all rows with a Date falling in October, and summing their Amounts. All of the values in the data
structure are on an equal footing: they are all exposed to the DBMS directly, and can directly participate in queries,
whereas in the previous situation some values were embedded in lower-level structures that had to be handled
specially. Accordingly, the normalized design lends itself to general-purpose query processing, whereas the
unnormalized design does not.
The objectives of normalization beyond 1NF were stated as follows by Codd:
1. To free the collection of relations from undesirable insertion, update and deletion dependencies;
2. To reduce the need for restructuring the collection of relations as new types of data are introduced,
and thus increase the life span of application programs;
3. To make the relational model more informative to users;
4. To make the collection of relations neutral to the query statistics, where these statistics are liable to
change as time goes by.
—E.F. Codd, "Further Normalization of the Data Base Relational Model"[11]
The sections below give details of each of these objectives.
Database normalization 3

Free the database of modification anomalies

When an attempt is made to modify (update,
insert into, or delete from) a table, undesired
side-effects may follow. Not all tables can suffer
from these side-effects; rather, the side-effects
can only arise in tables that have not been
sufficiently normalized. An insufficiently
normalized table might have one or more of the
following characteristics:
An update anomaly. Employee 519 is shown as having different addresses
• The same information can be expressed on
on different records.
multiple rows; therefore updates to the table
may result in logical inconsistencies. For
example, each record in an "Employees'
Skills" table might contain an Employee ID,
Employee Address, and Skill; thus a change
of address for a particular employee will
potentially need to be applied to multiple
records (one for each of his skills). If the
update is not carried through successfully—if,
that is, the employee's address is updated on
some records but not others—then the table is
An insertion anomaly. Until the new faculty member, Dr. Newsome, is
left in an inconsistent state. Specifically, the
assigned to teach at least one course, his details cannot be recorded.
table provides conflicting answers to the
question of what this particular employee's
address is. This phenomenon is known as an
update anomaly.

• There are circumstances in which certain

facts cannot be recorded at all. For example,
each record in a "Faculty and Their Courses"
table might contain a Faculty ID, Faculty
Name, Faculty Hire Date, and Course
Code—thus we can record the details of any A deletion anomaly. All information about Dr. Giddens is lost when he
faculty member who teaches at least one temporarily ceases to be assigned to any courses.
course, but we cannot record the details of a
newly-hired faculty member who has not yet been assigned to teach any courses. This phenomenon is known as
an insertion anomaly.
• There are circumstances in which the deletion of data representing certain facts necessitates the deletion of data
representing completely different facts. The "Faculty and Their Courses" table described in the previous example
suffers from this type of anomaly, for if a faculty member temporarily ceases to be assigned to any courses, we
must delete the last of the records on which that faculty member appears, effectively also deleting the faculty
member. This phenomenon is known as a deletion anomaly.
Database normalization 4

Minimize redesign when extending the database structure

When a fully normalized database structure is extended to allow it to accommodate new types of data, the
pre-existing aspects of the database structure can remain largely or entirely unchanged. As a result, applications
interacting with the database are minimally affected.

Make the data model more informative to users

Normalized tables, and the relationship between one normalized table and another, mirror real-world concepts and
their interrelationships.

Avoid bias towards any particular pattern of querying

Normalized tables are suitable for general-purpose querying. This means any queries against these tables, including
future queries whose details cannot be anticipated, are supported. In contrast, tables that are not normalized lend
themselves to some types of queries, but not others.
For example, consider an online bookseller whose customers maintain wishlists of books they'd like to have. For the
obvious, anticipated query -- what books does this customer want? -- it's enough to store the customer's wishlist in
the table as, say, a homogeneous string of authors and titles.
With this design, though, the database can answer only that one single query. It cannot by itself answer interesting
but unanticipated queries: What is the most-wished-for book? Which customers are interested in WWII espionage?
How does Lord Byron stack up against his contemporary poets? Answers to these questions must come from special
adaptive tools completely separate from the database. One tool might be software written especially to handle such
queries. This special adaptive software has just one single purpose: in effect to normalize the non-normalized field.
Unforeseen queries can be answered trivially, and entirely within the database framework, with a normalized table.

Background to normalization: definitions

Functional dependency
In a given table, an attribute Y is said to have a functional dependency on a set of attributes X (written X → Y)
if and only if each X value is associated with precisely one Y value. For example, in an "Employee" table that
includes the attributes "Employee ID" and "Employee Date of Birth", the functional dependency {Employee
ID} → {Employee Date of Birth} would hold.
Trivial functional dependency
A trivial functional dependency is a functional dependency of an attribute on a superset of itself. {Employee
ID, Employee Address} → {Employee Address} is trivial, as is {Employee Address} → {Employee
Address}.
Full functional dependency
An attribute is fully functionally dependent on a set of attributes X if it is
• functionally dependent on X, and
• not functionally dependent on any proper subset of X. {Employee Address} has a functional dependency on
{Employee ID, Skill}, but not a full functional dependency, because it is also dependent on {Employee ID}.
Transitive dependency
A transitive dependency is an indirect functional dependency, one in which X→Z only by virtue of X→Y and
Y→Z.
Multivalued dependency
Database normalization 5

A multivalued dependency is a constraint according to which the presence of certain rows in a table implies
the presence of certain other rows.
Join dependency
A table T is subject to a join dependency if T can always be recreated by joining multiple tables each having a
subset of the attributes of T.
Superkey
A superkey is an attribute or set of attributes that uniquely identifies rows within a table; in other words, two
distinct rows are always guaranteed to have distinct superkeys. {Employee ID, Employee Address, Skill}
would be a superkey for the "Employees' Skills" table; {Employee ID, Skill} would also be a superkey.
Candidate key
A candidate key is a minimal superkey, that is, a superkey for which we can say that no proper subset of it is
also a superkey. {Employee Id, Skill} would be a candidate key for the "Employees' Skills" table.
Non-prime attribute
A non-prime attribute is an attribute that does not occur in any candidate key. Employee Address would be a
non-prime attribute in the "Employees' Skills" table.
Primary key
Most DBMSs require a table to be defined as having a single unique key, rather than a number of possible
unique keys. A primary key is a key which the database designer has designated for this purpose.

Normal forms
The normal forms (abbrev. NF) of relational database theory provide criteria for determining a table's degree of
vulnerability to logical inconsistencies and anomalies. The higher the normal form applicable to a table, the less
vulnerable it is to inconsistencies and anomalies. Each table has a "highest normal form" (HNF): by definition, a
table always meets the requirements of its HNF and of all normal forms lower than its HNF; also by definition, a
table fails to meet the requirements of any normal form higher than its HNF.
The normal forms are applicable to individual tables; to say that an entire database is in normal form n is to say that
all of its tables are in normal form n.
Newcomers to database design sometimes suppose that normalization proceeds in an iterative fashion, i.e. a 1NF
design is first normalized to 2NF, then to 3NF, and so on. This is not an accurate description of how normalization
typically works. A sensibly designed table is likely to be in 3NF on the first attempt; furthermore, if it is 3NF, it is
overwhelmingly likely to have an HNF of 5NF. Achieving the "higher" normal forms (above 3NF) does not usually
require an extra expenditure of effort on the part of the designer, because 3NF tables usually need no modification to
meet the requirements of these higher normal forms.
The main normal forms are summarized below.
Database normalization 6

Normal form Defined by Brief definition

First normal form [12] Table faithfully represents a relation and has no repeating
Two versions: E.F. Codd (1970), C.J. Date (2003)
(1NF) groups

Second normal form [13] No non-prime attribute in the table is functionally

E.F. Codd (1971)
(2NF) dependent on a part (proper subset) of a candidate key

Third normal form [14] Every non-prime attribute is non-transitively dependent on

E.F. Codd (1971) ; see +also Carlo Zaniolo's equivalent
(3NF) [15] every key of the table
but differently-expressed definition (1982)

Boyce-Codd normal [16] Every non-trivial functional dependency in the table is a

Raymond F. Boyce and E.F. Codd (1974)
form (BCNF) dependency on a superkey

Fourth normal form [17] Every non-trivial multivalued dependency in the table is a
Ronald Fagin (1977)
(4NF) dependency on a superkey

Fifth normal form [18] Every non-trivial join dependency in the table is implied
Ronald Fagin (1979)
(5NF) by the superkeys of the table

Domain/key normal [19] Every constraint on the table is a logical consequence of

Ronald Fagin (1981)
form (DKNF) the table's domain constraints and key constraints

Sixth normal form [5] Table features no non-trivial join dependencies at all (with
C.J. Date, Hugh Darwen, and Nikos Lorentzos (2002)
(6NF) reference to generalized join operator)

Denormalization
Databases intended for online transaction processing (OLTP) are typically more normalized than databases intended
for online analytical processing (OLAP). OLTP applications are characterized by a high volume of small
transactions such as updating a sales record at a supermarket checkout counter. The expectation is that each
transaction will leave the database in a consistent state. By contrast, databases intended for OLAP operations are
primarily "read mostly" databases. OLAP applications tend to extract historical data that has accumulated over a
long period of time. For such databases, redundant or "denormalized" data may facilitate business intelligence
applications. Specifically, dimensional tables in a star schema often contain denormalized data. The denormalized or
redundant data must be carefully controlled during extract, transform, load (ETL) processing, and users should not
be permitted to see the data until it is in a consistent state. The normalized alternative to the star schema is the
snowflake schema. In many cases, the need for denormalization has waned as computers and RDBMS software have
become more powerful, but since data volumes have generally increased along with hardware and software
performance, OLAP databases often still use denormalized schemas.
Denormalization is also used to improve performance on smaller computers as in computerized cash-registers and
mobile devices, since these may use the data for look-up only (e.g. price lookups). Denormalization may also be
used when no RDBMS exists for a platform (such as Palm), or no changes are to be made to the data and a swift
response is crucial.
Database normalization 7

Non-first normal form (NF² or N1NF)

In recognition that denormalization can be deliberate and useful, the non-first normal form is a definition of database
designs which do not conform to first normal form, by allowing "sets and sets of sets to be attribute domains" (Schek
1982). The languages used to query and manipulate data in the model must be extended accordingly to support such
values.
One way of looking at this is to consider such structured values as being specialized types of values (domains), with
their own domain-specific languages. However, what is usually meant by non-1NF models is the approach in which
the relational model and the languages used to query it are extended with a general mechanism for such structure; for
instance, the nested relational model supports the use of relations as domain values, by adding two additional
operators (nest and unnest) to the relational algebra that can create and flatten nested relations, respectively.
Consider the following table:

First Normal Form

Person Favorite Color

Bob blue

Bob red

Jane green

Jane yellow

Jane red

Assume a person has several favorite colors. Obviously, favorite colors consist of a set of colors modeled by the
given table. To transform a 1NF into an NF² table a "nest" operator is required which extends the relational algebra
of the higher normal forms. Applying the "nest" operator to the 1NF table yields the following NF² table:

Non-First Normal Form

Person Favorite Colors

Bob
Favorite Color

blue

red

Jane
Favorite Color

green

yellow

red

To transform this NF² table back into a 1NF an "unnest" operator is required which extends the relational algebra of
the higher normal forms (one would allow "colors" to be its own table).
Although "unnest" is the mathematical inverse to "nest", the operator "nest" is not always the mathematical inverse
of "unnest". Another constraint required is for the operators to be bijective, which is covered by the Partitioned
Normal Form (PNF).
Database normalization 8

Further reading
• Litt's Tips: Normalization [20]
• Date, C. J. (1999), An Introduction to Database Systems [21] (8th ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman. ISBN
0-321-19784-4.
• Kent, W. (1983) A Simple Guide to Five Normal Forms in Relational Database Theory [22], Communications of
the ACM, vol. 26, pp. 120–125
• Date, C.J., & Darwen, H., & Pascal, F. Database Debunkings [23]
• H.-J. Schek, P. Pistor Data Structures for an Integrated Data Base Management and Information Retrieval System

Notes and references

[1] Codd, E.F. The Relational Model for Database Management: Version 2. Addison-Wesley (1990), p. 271
[2] Codd, E.F. (June 1970). "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks" (http:/ / www. acm. org/ classics/ nov95/ toc. html).
Communications of the ACM 13 (6): 377–387. doi:10.1145/362384.362685. .
[3] Codd, E.F. "Further Normalization of the Data Base Relational Model." (Presented at Courant Computer Science Symposia Series 6, "Data
Base Systems," New York City, May 24th-25th, 1971.) IBM Research Report RJ909 (August 31st, 1971). Republished in Randall J. Rustin
(ed.), Data Base Systems: Courant Computer Science Symposia Series 6. Prentice-Hall, 1972.
[4] Codd, E. F. "Recent Investigations into Relational Data Base Systems." IBM Research Report RJ1385 (April 23rd, 1974). Republished in
Proc. 1974 Congress (Stockholm, Sweden, 1974). New York, N.Y.: North-Holland (1974).
[5] C.J. Date, Hugh Darwen, Nikos Lorentzos. Temporal Data and the Relational Model. Morgan Kaufmann (2002), p. 176
[6] C.J. Date. An Introduction to Database Systems. Addison-Wesley (1999), p. 290
[7] Chris Date, for example, writes: "I believe firmly that anything less than a fully normalized design is strongly contraindicated ... [Y]ou should
"denormalize" only as a last resort. That is, you should back off from a fully normalized design only if all other strategies for improving
performance have somehow failed to meet requirements." Date, C.J. Database in Depth: Relational Theory for Practitioners. O'Reilly (2005),
p. 152.
[8] Ralph Kimball, for example, writes: "The use of normalized modeling in the data warehouse presentation area defeats the whole purpose of
data warehousing, namely, intuitive and high-performance retrieval of data." Kimball, Ralph. The Data Warehouse Toolkit, 2nd Ed.. Wiley
Computer Publishing (2002), p. 11.
[9] "The adoption of a relational model of data ... permits the development of a universal data sub-language based on an applied predicate
calculus. A first-order predicate calculus suffices if the collection of relations is in first normal form. Such a language would provide a
yardstick of linguistic power for all other proposed data languages, and would itself be a strong candidate for embedding (with appropriate
syntactic modification) in a variety of host Ianguages (programming, command- or problem-oriented)." Codd, "A Relational Model of Data
for Large Shared Data Banks" (http:/ / www. acm. org/ classics/ nov95/ toc. html), p. 381
[10] Codd, E.F. Chapter 23, "Serious Flaws in SQL", in The Relational Model for Database Management: Version 2. Addison-Wesley (1990), p.
371-389
[11] Codd, E.F. "Further Normalization of the Data Base Relational Model", p. 34
[12] Date, C. J. "What First Normal Form Really Means" in Date on Database: Writings 2000-2006 (Springer-Verlag, 2006), pp. 127-128.
[13] Codd, E.F. "Further Normalization of the Data Base Relational Model." (Presented at Courant Computer Science Symposia Series 6, "Data
Base Systems," New York City, May 24-25, 1971.) IBM Research Report RJ909 (August 31st, 1971). Republished in Randall J. Rustin (ed.),
Data Base Systems: Courant Computer Science Symposia Series 6. Prentice-Hall, 1972.
[14] Codd, E.F. "Further Normalization of the Data Base Relational Model." (Presented at Courant Computer Science Symposia Series 6, "Data
Base Systems," New York City, May 24-25, 1971.) IBM Research Report RJ909 (August 31, 1971). Republished in Randall J. Rustin (ed.),
Data Base Systems: Courant Computer Science Symposia Series 6. Prentice-Hall, 1972.
[15] Zaniolo, Carlo. "A New Normal Form for the Design of Relational Database Schemata." ACM Transactions on Database Systems 7(3),
September 1982.
[16] Codd, E. F. "Recent Investigations into Relational Data Base Systems." IBM Research Report RJ1385 (April 23, 1974). Republished in
Proc. 1974 Congress (Stockholm, Sweden, 1974). New York, N.Y.: North-Holland (1974).
[17] Fagin, Ronald (September 1977). "Multivalued Dependencies and a New Normal Form for Relational Databases" (http:/ / www. almaden.
ibm. com/ cs/ people/ fagin/ tods77. pdf). ACM Transactions on Database Systems 2 (1): 267. doi:10.1145/320557.320571. .
[18] Ronald Fagin. "Normal Forms and Relational Database Operators". ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, May
31-June 1, 1979, Boston, Mass. Also IBM Research Report RJ2471, Feb. 1979.
[19] Ronald Fagin (1981) A Normal Form for Relational Databases That Is Based on Domains and Keys (http:/ / www. almaden. ibm. com/ cs/
people/ fagin/ tods81. pdf), Communications of the ACM, vol. 6, pp. 387-415
[20] http:/ / www. troubleshooters. com/ littstip/ ltnorm. html
[21] http:/ / www. aw-bc. com/ catalog/ academic/ product/ 0,1144,0321197844,00. html
[22] http:/ / www. bkent. net/ Doc/ simple5. htm
Database normalization 9

[23] http:/ / www. dbdebunk. com

• Paper: "Non First Normal Form Relations" by G. Jaeschke, H. -J Schek ; IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center. ->
Paper studying normalization and denormalization operators nest and unnest as mildly described at the end of this
wiki page.

See also
• Aspect (computer science)
• Business rule
• Canonical form
• Cross-cutting concern
• Optimization (computer science)
• Refactoring

External links
• Database Normalization Basics (http://databases.about.com/od/specificproducts/a/normalization.htm) by
Mike Chapple (About.com)
• Database Normalization Intro (http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511), Part 2 (http://
www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/26861_1474411_1)
• An Introduction to Database Normalization (http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/
intro-to-normalization.html) by Mike Hillyer.
• Normalization (http://www.utexas.edu/its/windows/database/datamodeling/rm/rm7.html) by ITS,
University of Texas.
• A tutorial on the first 3 normal forms (http://phlonx.com/resources/nf3/) by Fred Coulson
• DB Normalization Examples (http://www.dbnormalization.com/)
• Description of the database normalization basics (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283878) by Microsoft
• Database Normalization and Design Techniques (http://www.barrywise.com/2008/01/
database-normalization-and-design-techniques/) by Barry Wise, recommended reading for the Harvard MIS.
Article Sources and Contributors 10

Article Sources and Contributors

Database normalization  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=374748282  Contributors: ARPIT SRIVASTAV, Ahoerstemeier, Akamad, Akhristov, Alai, Alasdair, Alest, Alpha
4615, Amr40, AndrewWTaylor, Antonielly, Anwar saadat, Apapadop, Arakunem, Archer3, Arcturus, Ascend, AstroWiki, AubreyEllenShomo, Autocracy, AutumnSnow, Azhar600-1, BMF81,
Babbling.Brook, Bernard François, Bewildebeast, Billben74, Billpennock, Black Eagle, Blade44, Blakewest, Blanchardb, Bloodshedder, Blowdart, BlueNovember, BlueWanderer, Boson,
Bovineone, BradBeattie, Brick Thrower, BrokenSegue, Bruceshining, Bschmidt, Bugsbunny1611, BuzCo, CLW, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Chairboy, Chrislk02, Citral, CodeNaked,
Conversion script, Creature, Crenner, Damian Yerrick, DanMS, Dancraggs, Danlev, Datasmid, David Colbourn, DavidConrad, DavidHOzAu, Davidhorman, Decrease789, Demosta, DerHexer,
Dfass, Dflock, Discospinster, Doc vogt, DocRuby, Docu, Doud101, Dreftymac, Drowne, Dthomsen8, Duke Ganote, Edward Z. Yang, Eghanvat, Elcool83, Elwikipedista, EmmetCaulfield,
Emperorbma, Encognito, Enric Naval, Epepke, Eric Burnett, Escape Orbit, Ethan, Evilyuffie, Farquaadhnchmn, Fathergod, FauxFaux, Fieldday-sunday, Fireman biff, Flewellyn, Fmjohnson,
Fraggle81, Fred Bradstadt, Furrykef, Gadfium, Gimboid13, Gk5885, Gogo Dodo, Gottabekd, Gregbard, GregorB, Groganus, Gustavb, Guybrush, Gwr2004, Hadal, Hanifbbz, Hapsiainen, HbJ,
Hbf, Heracles31, HiDrNick, Hydrogen Iodide, Ianblanes, IceUnshattered, Imre Fabian, Inquam, Intgr, Jamesday, Jamesjusty, Jan Hidders, Japo, Jdlambert, Jgro, Jjjjjjjjjj, Jklin, Joness59, Joseph
Dwayne, Jpatokal, Jpo, KAtremer, KathrynLybarger, Keane2007, Keegan, KevinOwen, KeyStroke, Keyvez, Kgwikipedian, Kingpin13, Klausness, L'Aquatique, Larsinio, Lawrence Cohen,
Leandrod, Lee J Haywood, Legless the oaf, Leleutd, Leotohill, Les boys, Lethe, Libcub, Lifeweaver, Linhvn88, LittleOldMe, Longhair, Lssilva, Lujianxiong, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Lumingz,
Luna Santin, MER-C, Magantygk, Manavkataria, Mark Renier, Marknew, MarownIOM, MartinHarper, Masterstupid, Matmota, Matthew 1130, Mckaysalisbury, Metaeducation, Michael Hardy,
Michalis Famelis, Microtony, Mike Rosoft, Mikeblas, Mikeo, Mindmatrix, Miss Madeline, Mjhorrell, Mo0, Modeha, Mooredc, Mpd, Mr Stephen, MrDarcy, Nabav, NawlinWiki, Nick1nildram,
NoahWolfe, Noisy, Nsaa, NubKnacker, Obradovic Goran, Ocrow, OliverMay, Opes, Oxymoron83, Pagh, Peachey88, Pearle, Perfectblue97, Pete142, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Phil Boswell, Pie
Man 360, Plastic rat, Polluxian, ProveIt, Purplepiano, Quarl, RB972, Railgun, Rdsmith4, Rdummarf, Reedy, Regancy42, Reinyday, Remy B, Reofi, RichF, Rjwilmsi, Robert McClenon,
Robomaeyhem, Rockcool19, Rodasmith, Romke, Ronfagin, Rp, Rumplefish, Ruud Koot, Ryulong, Sam Hocevar, ScottJ, Seaphoto, Sfnhltb, Shadowjams, Shawn wiki, Shreyasjoshis, Shyamal,
Silpi, Simeon, Simetrical, Sixpence, Skritek, Smjg, Smurfix, Snezzy, Snigbrook, Sonett72, Soulpatch, Soumyasch, Spacesoon, Sstrader, Stannered, Starwiz, Stephen e nelson, SteveHL, Stifle,
Stolkin, Sue Rangell, Superjaws, Sydneyw, Sylvain Mielot, Szathmar, Taw, Tcamacho, Tedickey, Teknic, Tgantos, The Thing That Should Not Be, The undertow, The1physicist, Tide rolls,
Titofhr, Tobias Bergemann, Toddst1, Tom Lougheed, Toxicwaste288, Traxs7, Troels Arvin, Turnstep, Twinney12, Tyc20, Unforgettableid, Upholder, Utcursch, Vald, Valdor65, VinceBowdren,
Vladsinger, Vodak, Voidxor, Waggers, Wakimakirolls, Wexcan, WikipedianYknOK, Wildheat, Wilfordbrimley, Wilsondavidc, Woohookitty, Xiong Chiamiov, Xiroth, Yong-Yeol Ahn, Zedla,
Zeyn1, Zhenqinli, 1051 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image:Update anomaly.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Update_anomaly.png  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Hertzsprung, Nabav
Image:Insertion anomaly.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Insertion_anomaly.svg  License: unknown  Contributors: User:Stannered
Image:Deletion anomaly.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Deletion_anomaly.svg  License: unknown  Contributors: User:Stannered

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/