Chapter 7:

Functional Dependencies &

Normalization for Relational DBs
Contents

1 Introduction
2 Functional dependencies (FDs)
3 Normalization
4 Relational database schema design algorithms
5 Key finding algorithms

Jan - 2015 2
Contents

1 Introduction
2 Functional dependencies (FDs)
3 Normalization
4 Relational database dchema design algorithms
5 Key finding algorithms

Jan - 2015 3
Top-Down Database Design

Mini-world
Requirements

E1
R

Conceptual schema
Relation schemas E2

Jan - 2015 4
Introduction
◼ Each relation schema consists of a number of
attributes and the relational database schema
consists of a number of relation schemas.
◼ Attributes are grouped to form a relation
schema.
◼ Need some formal measure of why one
grouping of attributes into a relation schema
may be better than another.

Jan - 2015 5
Introduction
◼ “Goodness” measures:
❑ Redundant information in tuples.
❑ Update anomalies: modification, deletion,
insertion.
❑ Reducing the NULL values in tuples.
❑ Disallowing the possibility of generating spurious
tuples.

Jan - 2015 6
Redundant information
◼ The attribute values pertaining to a particular
department (DNUMBER, DNAME, DMGRSSN)
are repeated for every employee who works for
that department.

Jan - 2015 7
Update anomalies
◼ Update anomalies: modification, deletion,
insertion
❑ Modification
◼ As the manager of a dept. changes we have to update many
values according to employees working for that dept.
◼ Easy to make the DB inconsistent.

Jan - 2015 8
Update anomalies
◼ Update anomalies: modification, deletion,
insertion
❑ Deletion: if Borg James E. leaves, we delete his tuple
and lose the existing of dept. 1, the name of dept. 1,
and who is the manager of dept. 1.

Jan - 2015 9
Update anomalies
◼ Update anomalies: modification, deletion,
insertion
❑ Insertion:
◼ How can we create a department before any employees
are assigned to it ?

Jan - 2015 10
Reducing NULL values
◼ Employees not assigned to any dept.: waste the
storage space.
◼ Other difficulties: aggregation operations (e.g.,
COUNT, SUM) and joins.

Jan - 2015 11
Generation spurious tuples
◼ Disallowing the possibility of generating spurious
tuples.
EMP_PROJ(SSN, PNUMBER, HOURS, ENAME,
PNAME, PLOCATION)

EMP_LOCS(ENAME, PLOCATION)
EMP_PROJ1(SSN, PNUMBER, HOURS, PNAME,
PLOCATION)

◼ Generation of invalid and spurious data during JOINS:

PLOCATION is the attribute that relates EMP_LOCS and
EMP_PROJ1, and PLOCATION is neither a primary key
nor a foreign key in either EMP_LOCS or EMP_PROJ1 .

Jan - 2015 12
Generation spurious tuples

Jan - 2015 13
Generation spurious tuples

Jan - 2015 14
Generation spurious tuples

Jan - 2015 15
Summary of Design Guidelines
◼ “Goodness” measures:
❑ Redundant information in tuples
❑ Update anomalies: modification, deletion, insertion
❑ Reducing the NULL values in tuples
❑ Disallowing the possibility of generating spurious tuples
 Normalization
◼ It helps DB designers determine the best relation
schemas.
❑ 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.
◼ It is based on the concept of normal form 1NF, 2NF,
3NF, BCNF, 4NF, 5 NF.

Jan - 2015 16
Contents

1 Introduction
2 Functional dependencies (FDs)
3 Normalization
4 Relational database schema design algorithms
5 Key finding algorithms

Jan - 2015 17
Functional Dependencies (FDs)
◼ Definition of FD
◼ Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Equivalence of Sets of FDs
◼ Minimal Sets of FDs

Jan - 2015 18
Definition of Functional dependencies
◼ Functional dependencies (FDs) are used to
specify formal measures of the "goodness"
of relational designs.
◼ FDs and keys are used to define normal
forms for relations.
◼ FDs 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.

Jan - 2015 19
Definition of 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)
◼ Examples:
❑ social security number determines employee name:
SSN -> ENAME
❑ project number determines project name and location:
PNUMBER -> {PNAME, PLOCATION}
❑ employee ssn and project number determines the hours
per week that the employee works on the project:
{SSN, PNUMBER} -> HOURS

Jan - 2015 20
Definition of Functional dependencies
◼ 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]).

Jan - 2015 21
Functional Dependencies (FDs)
◼ Definition of FD
◼ Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Equivalence of Sets of FDs
◼ Minimal Sets of FDs

Jan - 2015 22
Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Direct dependency (fully functional
dependency): All attributes in a R must be fully
functionally dependent on the primary key (or
the PK is a determinant of all attributes in R).
Performer-
Performer-id name
Performer-
type

Performer-
location

Jan - 2015 23
Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Indirect dependency (transitive dependency):
Value of an attribute is not determined directly
by the primary key.

Performer-
Performer-id name

Performer- Fee
type

Performer-
location

Jan - 2015 24
Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Partial dependency
❑ Composite determinant: more than one value is required to
determine the value of another attribute, the combination of
values is called a composite determinant.
EMP_PROJ(SSN, PNUMBER, HOURS, ENAME, PNAME, PLOCATION)
{SSN, PNUMBER} -> HOURS

❑ Partial dependency: if the value of an attribute does not depend

on an entire composite determinant, but only part of it, the
relationship is known as the partial dependency.
SSN -> ENAME
PNUMBER -> {PNAME, PLOCATION}

Jan - 2015 25
Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Partial dependency

Performer-name
Performer-id
Performer-type

Performer-location

Fee

Agent-id Agent-name

Agent-location

Jan - 2015 26
Functional Dependencies (FDs)
◼ Definition of FD
◼ Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Equivalence of Sets of FDs
◼ Minimal Sets of FDs

Jan - 2015 27
Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Given a set of FDs F, we can infer additional
FDs that hold whenever the FDs in F hold.
Armstrong's inference rules:
IR1. (Reflexive) If Y  X, then X -> Y.
IR2. (Augmentation) If X -> Y, then XZ -> YZ.
(Notation: XZ stands for X U Z)
IR3. (Transitive) If X -> Y and Y -> Z, then X -> Z.

Jan - 2015 28
Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Some additional inference rules that are
useful:
(Decomposition) If X -> YZ, then X -> Y and X -> Z
(Union) If X -> Y and X -> Z, then X -> YZ
(Psuedotransitivity) If X -> Y and WY -> Z, then WX -> Z

◼ The last three inference rules, as well as any

other inference rules, can be deduced from IR1,
IR2, and IR3 (completeness property).

Jan - 2015 29
Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Closure of a set F of FDs is the set F+ of
all FDs that can be inferred from F.
◼ Closure of a set of attributes X with
respect to F is the set X + of all attributes
that are functionally determined by X.
◼ X + can be calculated by repeatedly
applying IR1, IR2, IR3 using the FDs in F.

Jan - 2015 30
Inference Rules for FDs
Algorithm 16.1. Determining X+, the Closure of X under F
Input: A set F of FDs on a relation schema R, and a set of
attributes X, which is a subset of R.
X+ := X;
repeat
oldX+ := X+;
for each functional dependency Y → Z in F do
if X+ ⊇ Y then X+ := X+ ∪ Z;
until (X+ = oldX+);

Jan - 2015 31
Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Consider a relation R(A, B, C, D, E) with the
following dependencies F:
◼ (1) AB → C,
◼ (2) CD → E,
◼ (3) DE → B
◼ Find {A,B}+ ?

Jan - 2015 32
Functional Dependencies (FDs)
◼ Definition of FD
◼ Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Equivalence of Sets of FDs
◼ Minimal Sets of FDs

Jan - 2015 33
Equivalence of Sets of FDs
◼ Two sets of FDs F and G are equivalent if
F+ = G+.
◼ Definition: F covers G if G+  F+. F and G are
equivalent if F covers G and G covers F.
◼ There is an algorithm for checking equivalence
of sets of FDs.

Jan - 2015 34
Functional Dependencies (FDs)
◼ Definition of FD
◼ Direct, indirect, partial dependencies
◼ Inference Rules for FDs
◼ Equivalence of Sets of FDs
◼ Minimal Sets of FDs

Jan - 2015 35
Minimal Sets of FDs
◼ A set of FDs is minimal if it satisfies the
following conditions:
(1) Every dependency in F has a single attribute for its
right-hand side.
(2) We cannot remove any dependency from F and have
a set of dependencies that is equivalent to F.
(3) We cannot replace any dependency X -> A in F with a
dependency Y -> A, where Y proper-subset-of X ( Y
subset-of X) and still have a set of dependencies that
is equivalent to F.

Jan - 2015 36
Minimal Sets of FDs
Algorithm 16.2. Finding a Minimal Cover F for a Set of
Functional Dependencies E
Input: A set of functional dependencies E.
1. Set F := E.
2. Replace each functional dependency X→{A1, A2, ..., An} in F
by the n functional dependencies X→A1, X→A2, ..., X→An.
3. For each functional dependency X→A in F
for each attribute B that is an element of X
if { {F – {X→A} } ∪ { (X – {B} ) →A} } is equivalent to F
then replace X→A with (X – {B} ) →A in F.
4. For each remaining functional dependency X→A in F
if {F – {X→A} } is equivalent to F,
then remove X→A from F.
Jan - 2015 37
Minimal Sets of FDs
◼ Every set of FDs has an equivalent minimal set.
◼ There can be several equivalent minimal sets.
◼ There is no simple algorithm for computing a
minimal set of FDs that is equivalent to a set F of
FDs.
◼ To synthesize a set of relations, we assume that
we start with a set of dependencies that is a
minimal set.

Jan - 2015 38
Contents

1 Introduction
2 Functional dependencies (FDs)
3 Normalization
4 Relational database schema design algorithms
5 Key finding algorithms

Jan - 2015 39
Normalization
◼ Normalization: The process of decomposing
unsatisfactory "bad" relations by breaking up their
attributes into smaller relations.

◼ Normal form: Using keys and FDs of a relation to certify

whether a relation schema is in a particular normal form.

◼ Normalization is carried out in practice so that the

resulting designs are of high quality and meet the
desirable properties.

◼ The database designers need not normalize to the

highest possible normal form (3NF, BCNF or 4NF).

Jan - 2015 40
Normalization
◼ There are two important properties of
decompositions:
(a) non-additive or losslessness of the
corresponding join.
(b) preservation of the functional dependencies.

◼ Note that property (a) is extremely important

and cannot be sacrificed. Property (b) is less
stringent and may be sacrificed (see chapter
16).

Jan - 2015 41
Normalization
◼ Superkey of R: A set of attributes SK of R
such that no two tuples in any valid relation
instance r(R) will have the same value for
SK. That is, for any distinct tuples t1 and t2
in r(R), t1[SK] ≠ t2[SK].
◼ Key of R: A "minimal" superkey; that is, a
superkey K such that removal of any attribute
from K results in a set of attributes that is not
a superkey.
◼ If K is a key of R, then K functionally
determines all attributes in R.
Jan - 2015 42
Normalization
◼ Two new concepts:
❑ A Prime attribute must be a member of some
candidate key.
❑ A Nonprime attribute is not a prime attribute: it is
not a member of any candidate key.

Jan - 2015 43
Normalization
◼ 1NF and dependency problems
◼ 2NF – solves partial dependency
◼ 3NF – solves indirect dependency
◼ BCNF – well-normalized relations

Jan - 2015 44
1NF
◼ First normal form (1NF): there is only one
value at the intersection of each row and
column of a relation - no set valued attributes
in 1 NF → Disallows composite attributes,
multivalued attributes, and nested relations.

◼ The only attribute values permitted by 1NF

are single atomic (or indivisible) values.

Jan - 2015 45
 1NF

Jan - 2015 46
1NF

Jan - 2015 47
1NF

Jan - 2015 48
Normalization
◼ 1NF and dependency problems
◼ 2NF – solves partial dependency
◼ 3NF – solves indirect dependency
◼ BCNF – well-normalized relations

Jan - 2015 49
2NF
◼ Second normal form (2NF) – all non-prime
attributes must be fully functionally dependent
on the primary key.
◼ 2NF solves partial dependency problem in 1NF.
◼ 2NF normalized: Decompose and set up a new
relation for each partial key with its dependent
attribute(s).Make sure to keep a relation with the
original primary key and any attributes that are
fully functionally dependent on it.

Jan - 2015 50
 2NF

Jan - 2015 51
 2NF
Performer-
Performer-
name
id
Performer- Fee
type

Performer-
location

➢Problem with 2NF:

- Insertion
- Modification
- Deletion

Jan - 2015 52
Normalization
◼ 1NF and dependency problems
◼ 2NF – solves partial dependency
◼ 3NF – solves indirect dependency
◼ BCNF – well-normalized relations

Jan - 2015 53
3NF
◼ 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.

◼ 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#. Emp# → Salary and Emp# is a
candidate key.

Jan - 2015 54
3NF
◼ 3NF solves indirect (transitive) dependencies
problem in 1NF and 2NF.

◼ 3NF normalized: identify all transitive

dependencies and each transitive
dependency will form a new relation.

Jan - 2015 55
3NF

Jan - 2015 56
3NF
◼ LOCATION ( city, street, zip-code )
◼ F = { city, street -> zip-code,
zip-code -> city
Key1 : city, street (primary key)
Key2 : street, zip-code
city street zip-code

NY 55th 484

NY 56th 484

LA 55th 473

LA 56th 473

Jan - 2015 LA 57th 474 57

SUMMARY OF NORMAL FORMS
based on Primary Keys

Jan - 2015 58
General Normal Form Definitions
◼ The above definitions consider the primary
key only.
◼ The following more general definitions take
into account relations with multiple candidate
keys.

Jan - 2015 59
General Normal Form Definitions
◼ A relation schema R is in second normal form (2NF) if
every non-prime attribute A in R is not partially
functionally dependent on any key of R.

◼ A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if

whenever a FD X → A holds in R, then either:
(a) X is a superkey of R, or
(b) A is a prime attribute of R

Jan - 2015 60
General Normal Form Example

The LOTS relation with its functional dependencies.

Jan - 2015 61
General Normal Form Example

Decomposing into
the 2NF relations

Jan - 2015 62
General Normal Form Example

Decomposing LOTS1
into the 3NF relations

Jan - 2015 63
Normalization
◼ 1NF and dependency problems
◼ 2NF – solves partial dependency
◼ 3NF – solves indirect dependency
◼ BCNF – well-normalized relations

Jan - 2015 64
BCNF
◼ A relation schema R is in Boyce-Codd
Normal Form (BCNF) if whenever an FD
X -> A holds in R, then X is a superkey of
R.

Jan - 2015 65
BCNF

BCNF normalization of LOTS1A with the functional

dependency FD2 being lost in the decomposition.

Jan - 2015 66
BCNF
◼ TEACH (Student, Course, Instructor)
◼ FD1: {Student, Course} → Instructor
◼ FD2: Instructor → Course

Jan - 2015 67
BCNF
◼ Three possible pairs:
1. {Student, Instructor} and {Student, Course}
2. {Course, Instructor} and {Course, Student}
3. {Instructor, Course} and {Instructor, Student}

◼ All three decompositions lose the functional

dependency FD1. The desirable decomposition
of those just shown is 3 because it will not
generate spurious tuples after a join.

Jan - 2015 68
Notes & Suggestions
◼ [1], chapter 15:
❑ 4NF: based on multivalued dependency (MVD)
❑ 5NF: based on join dependency
◼ Such a dependency is very difficult to detect in practice
and therefore, normalization into 5NF is considered very
rarely in practice
❑ Other normal forms & algorithms
❑ ER modeling: top-down database design
◼ Bottom-up database design ??

◼ [1], chapter 16: Properties of Relational

Decompositions

Jan - 2015 69
Contents

1 Introduction
2 Functional dependencies (FDs)
3 Normalization
4 Relational database schema design algorithms
5 Key finding algorithms

Jan - 2015 70
Dependency-Preserving Decomposition
into 3NF Schemas
Algorithm 16.4. Relational Synthesis into 3NF with Dependency
Preservation
Input: A universal relation R and a set of functional
dependencies F on the attributes of R.
1. Find a minimal cover G for F (use Algorithm 16.2);
2. For each left-hand-side X of a functional dependency that
appears in G, create a relation schema in D with attributes {X ∪
{A1} ∪ {A2} ... ∪ {Ak} }, where X→A1, X→A2, ..., X→Ak are the
only dependencies in G with X as the left-hand-side (X is the key
of this relation);
3. Place any remaining attributes (that have not been placed in
any relation) in a single relation schema to ensure the attribute
preservation property.
Jan - 2015 71
Nonadditive Join Decomposition into
BCNF Schemas
Algorithm 16.5. Relational Decomposition into BCNF with
Nonadditive Join Property
Input: A universal relation R and a set of functional
dependencies F on the attributes of R.
1. Set D := {R} ;
2. While there is a relation schema Q in D that is not in BCNF
do
{
choose a relation schema Q in D that is not in BCNF;
find a functional dependency X→Y in Q that violates BCNF;
replace Q in D by two relation schemas (Q – Y) and (X ∪
Y);
} ;- 2015
Jan 72
Dependency-Preserving and Nonadditive
(Lossless) Join Decomposition into 3NF Schemas
Algorithm 16.6. Relational Synthesis into 3NF with Dependency
Preservation and Nonadditive Join Property
Input: A universal relation R and a set of functional dependencies F on
the attributes of R.
1. Find a minimal cover G for F (use Algorithm 16.2).
2. For each left-hand-side X of a functional dependency that appears in
G, create a relation schema in D with attributes {X ∪ {A1} ∪ {A2} ... ∪
{Ak} }, where X→A1, X→A2, ..., X→Ak are the only dependencies in G
with X as left-hand-side (X is the key of this relation).
3. If none of the relation schemas in D contains a key of R, then create
one more relation schema in D that contains attributes that form a key
of R.
4. Eliminate redundant relations from the resulting set of relations in the
relational database schema. A relation R is considered redundant if R
is a projection of another relation S in the schema; alternately, R is
subsumed by S
Jan - 2015 73
Dependency-Preserving and Nonadditive
(Lossless) Join Decomposition into 3NF Schemas
◼ Algorithm 16.6:
❑ Preserves dependencies.
❑ Has the nonadditive join property.
❑ Is such that each resulting relation schema in the
decomposition is in 3NF.

◼ It is preferred over Algorithm 16.4.

Jan - 2015 74
Contents

1 Introduction
2 Functional dependencies (FDs)
3 Normalization
4 Relational database schema design algorithms
5 Key finding algorithms

Jan - 2015 75
Key-finding algorithm (1)
By Elmasri and Navathe

Algorithm 16.2(a). Finding a Key K for R Given a

set F of Functional Dependencies
Input: A relation R and a set of functional
dependencies F on the attributes of R.
1. Set K := R.
2. For each attribute A in K
{compute (K – A)+ with respect to F;
if (K – A)+ contains all the attributes in R,
then set K := K – {A}
};
Jan - 2015 76
Key-finding algorithm (1)
By Elmasri and Navathe

◼ In algorithm (1), we start by setting K to all

the attributes of R; we then remove one
attribute at a time and check whether the
remaining attributes still form a superkey.
◼ The algorithm (1) determines only one key
out of the possible candidate keys for R; the
key returned depends on the order in which
attributes are removed from R in step 2.

Jan - 2015 77
Key-finding algorithm (2)
By Hossein Saiedian and Thomas Spencer
Input: A relation R and a set of functional dependencies F
on the attributes of R.
Output: all candidate keys of R

Let:
◼ U contain all attributes of R.

◼ UL contain attributes of R that occur only on the left-

hand side of FDs in F.
◼ UR contain attributes of R that occur only on the right-
hand side of FDs in F.
◼ UB contain attributes of R that occur on both sides of
FDs in F.

Jan - 2015 78
Key-finding algorithm (2)
By Hossein Saiedian and Thomas Spencer

Note:
◼ UL∩ UR = ф, UL ∩ UB = ф and UR ∩ UB = ф

◼ UL ∪ UR ∪ U B = U

◼ For every attribute A ∈ U, if A ∈ UL, then A

must be part of every candidate key of R.
◼ For every attribute A ∈ U, if A ∈ UR, then A
will not be part of any candidate key of R.

Jan - 2015 79
Key-finding algorithm (2)
By Hossein Saiedian and Thomas Spencer
Input: A relation R and a set of functional dependencies F on
the attributes of R.
Output: all candidate keys of R

1. Determine UL, UR and UB

2. If UL‡+ = U under F, then UL forms the only key of R and
the algorithm stops here.
Else: move to step 3 // UL+ ≠ U under F
3. Consider every subsets UBi of UB: UBi ⊂ UB
For each UBi, if (UL ∪ UBi)+ = U under F, then Ki = (UL ∪
UBi) is a candidate key of R (*)

(*) If Ki = (UL ∪ UBi) is a candidate key of R, then we need not

to check UBj ⊂ UB where UBi ⊂ UBj

Jan - 2015 80
Key-finding algorithm (2)
By Hossein Saiedian and Thomas Spencer

◼ A simple categorization of attributes into the

sets UL, UL and UL allows to distinguish
between those attributes that will participate
in the candidate keys of a relational database
schema and those that do not.
◼ The algorithm (2) finds all candidate keys.

Jan - 2015 81
Contents

1 Introduction
2 Functional dependencies (FDs)
3 Normalization
4 Relational database schema design algorithms
5 Key finding algorithms

Jan - 2015 82
MULTIVALUED DEPENDENCY

Jan - 2015 83
Jan - 2015 84
Exercise 1
Consider the universal relation R = {A, B, C, D,
E, F} and the set of functional dependencies:
1) A → B

2) C, D → A

3) B, C → D

4) A, E → F

5) C, E → D

What is the key for R?

Jan - 2015 85
Exercise 2
Consider the universal relation R = {A, B, C, D,
E, F} and the set of functional dependencies:
1) A, D → B

2) A, B → E

3) C → D

4) B → C

5) A, C → F

What is the key for R? Decompose R into 2NF,

3NF, and BCNF relations.
Jan - 2015 86
Exercise 3
Consider the universal relation R = {A, B, C, D,
E, F} and the set of functional dependencies:
1) A → B

2) C → A, D

3) A, F → C, E

What is the key for R? Decompose R into 2NF,

3NF, and BCNF relations.

Jan - 2015 87
Exercise 4
Consider the universal relation R = {A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, J} and the set of functional
dependencies:
1) A, B → C

2) B, D → E, F

3) A, D → G, H

4) A → I

5) H → J

What is the key for R? Decompose R into 2NF,

3NF, and BCNF relations.
Jan - 2015 88
Review questions
1) Define first, second, and third normal forms when
only primary keys are considered. How do the
general definitions of 2NF and 3NF, which consider
all keys of a relation, differ from those that consider
only primary keys?
2) Define Boyce-Codd normal form. How does it differ
from 3NF? Why is it considered a stronger form of
3NF?
3) What is a minimal set of functional dependencies?
Does every set of dependencies have a minimal
equivalent set? Is it always unique?

Jan - 2015 89
Finding Key
◼ R = (A, B, C, D, E, F)
◼ F = {A → D, C→ AF, AB → EC}
◼ What is the primary key of R?

Jan - 2015 90