Course

Introduction to Databases

Professor: Karima Echihabi

Program: Computer Engineering
Session: Fall 2023

1
 Databases
Functional Dependencies and Normalization
Chapter 19

2
Review-Database Design Process
Requirements Analysis
Interact with users and domain experts to
specify what the database should do.

Conceptual Design
Translate the requirements into a high-level
conceptual description (often using E/R Model)
Logical Design CREATE TABLE T ( cin
Convert the E/R Model into the DBMS logical data INTEGER, pname
VARCHAR(50),
model (in this class the relational model with schemas address FLOAT,
and constraints) PRIMARY KEY (cin));

Schema Refinement
Refine the logical model for consistency (but keeping
in mind performance!)

Physical Design
Develop the physical schema: how are schemas
stored physically on disk? How are they partitionned
in a distributed setting? Which indexes should be built?

Security Design
3
Set up measures to secure and protect the database
 Review-Database Design Process
Requirements Analysis
Interact with users and domain experts to
specify what the database should do.

Conceptual Design
Translate the requirements into a high-level
conceptual description (often using E/R Model)
Logical Design CREATE TABLE T ( cin
Convert the E/R Model into the DBMS logical data INTEGER, pname
VARCHAR(50),
model (in this class the relational model with schemas address FLOAT,
and constraints) PRIMARY KEY (cin));

Schema Refinement
Refine the logical model for consistency (but keeping
We are here!
in mind performance!)

Physical Design
Develop the physical schema: how are schemas
stored physically on disk? How are they partitionned
in a distributed setting? Which indexes should be built?

Security Design
4
Set up measures to secure and protect the database
The Evils of Redundancy
• Redundancy is at the root of several problems associated with relational
schemas:
• Redundancy means that some values in the database are replicated
• redundant storage,
• insert/delete/update anomalies
• Integrity constraints, in particular functional dependencies, can be used
to identify schemas with such problems and to suggest refinements.
• Main refinement technique: decomposition (replacing ABCD with, say,
AB and BCD, or ACD and ABD).
• Decomposition should be used judiciously:
• Is there reason to decompose a relation?
• What problems (if any) does the decomposition cause?

5
Functional Dependencies (FDs)

• A functional dependency X → Y holds over relation R if, for every

allowable instance r of R:
• X determines Y
• For any two tuples in r, if their x values are the same, then their y values
are the same. But not vice versa!
X Y Z
1 a f
1 a e
? a g

6
Functional Dependencies (FDs)

• A functional dependency X → Y holds over relation R if, for every

allowable instance r of R:
• X determines Y
• For any two tuples in r, if their x values are the same, then their y values
are the same. But not vice versa!
X Y Z
1 a f
1 a e
2 a g

7
Functional Dependencies (FDs)
• A functional dependency X → Y holds over relation R if, for every
allowable instance r of R:
• 
t1  r, t2  r, X (t1) =  X (t2) implies Y

(t1) = Y (t2)
• i.e., given two tuples in r, if the X values agree, then the Y values must also
agree. (X and Y are sets of attributes.)
• An FD is a statement about all allowable relations.
• Must be identified based on semantics of application.
• Given some allowable instance r1 of R, we can check if it violates some FD f, but
we cannot tell if f holds over R!
• K is a candidate key for R means that K → R
• However, K → R does not require K to be minimal!

8
FDs vs Keys
• FDs are a generalization of keys
• A superkey/key:
• is a set of attributes that determines all the other attributes in a table
• KEY -> {all table attributes}
• A candidate key:
• A special case of superkey
• is a minimal set of attributes that determines all the other attributes
• A primary key:
• is one particular key chosen from the set of possible candidate keys
• Note that the notion of keys here is different from index/sort keys

9
Example: Constraints on Entity Set
• Consider relation obtained from Hourly_Emps:
• Hourly_Emps (ssn, name, lot, rating, hrly_wages, hrs_worked)
• Notation: We will denote this relation schema by listing the
attributes: SNLRWH
• This is really the set of attributes {S,N,L,R,W,H}.
• Sometimes, we will refer to all attributes of a relation by using the relation
name. (e.g., Hourly_Emps for SNLRWH)
• Some FDs on Hourly_Emps:
• ssn is the primary key: S → SNLRWH
• rating determines hrly_wages: R → W
• lot determines lot (L → L)
10
Example (Contd.)
Hourly_Emps

• Problems due to R → W: S N L R W H
• Update anomaly: Can we 123-22-3666 Attishoo 48 8 10 40
change W in just the 1st tuple 231-31-5368 Smiley 22 8 10 30
of SNLRWH?
131-24-3650 Smethurst 35 5 7 30
• Insertion anomaly: What if we
want to insert an employee and 434-26-3751 Guldu 35 5 7 32
don’t know the hourly wage for 612-67-4134 Madayan 35 8 10 40
his rating?
• Deletion anomaly: If we delete
all employees with rating 5, we
lose the information about the
wage for rating 5!

11
Example (Contd.)
Hourly_Emps

• Problems due to R → W: S N L R W H
• Update anomaly: Can we 123-22-3666 Attishoo 48 8 10 40
change W in just the 1st tuple 231-31-5368 Smiley 22 8 10 30
of SNLRWH?
131-24-3650 Smethurst 35 5 7 30
• Insertion anomaly: What if we
want to insert an employee and 434-26-3751 Guldu 35 5 7 32
don’t know the hourly wage for 612-67-4134 Madayan 35 8 10 40
his/her rating?
• Deletion anomaly: If we delete
all employees with rating 5, we
lose the information about the
wage for rating 5!

12
Example (Contd.)
Hourly_Emps

• Problems due to R → W: S N L R W H
• Update anomaly: Can we 123-22-3666 Attishoo 48 8 10 40
change W in just the 1st tuple 231-31-5368 Smiley 22 8 10 30
of SNLRWH?
131-24-3650 Smethurst 35 5 7 30
• Insertion anomaly: What if we
want to insert an employee and 434-26-3751 Guldu 35 5 7 32
don’t know the hourly wage for 612-67-4134 Madayan 35 8 10 40
his/her rating?
• Deletion anomaly: If we delete
all employees with rating 5, we
lose the information about the
wage for rating 5!

13
Example (Contd.)
Hourly_Emps

• Problems due to R → W: S N L R W H
• Update anomaly: Can we 123-22-3666 Attishoo 48 8 10 40
change W in just the 1st tuple 231-31-5368 Smiley 22 8 10 30
of SNLRWH?
131-24-3650 Smethurst 35 5 7 30
• Insertion anomaly: What if we
want to insert an employee and 434-26-3751 Guldu 35 5 7 32
don’t know the hourly wage for 612-67-4134 Madayan 35 8 10 40
his/her rating?
• Deletion anomaly: If we delete
all employees with rating 5, we
lose the information about the
wage for rating 5!

But why does R → W cause an anomaly when S→ W does not?

14
Example (Contd.)
Hourly_Emps

• Problems due to R → W: S N L R W H
• Update anomaly: Can we 123-22-3666 Attishoo 48 8 10 40
change W in just the 1st tuple 231-31-5368 Smiley 22 8 10 30
of SNLRWH?
131-24-3650 Smethurst 35 5 7 30
• Insertion anomaly: What if we
want to insert an employee and 434-26-3751 Guldu 35 5 7 32
don’t know the hourly wage for 612-67-4134 Madayan 35 8 10 40
his/her rating?
• Deletion anomaly: If we delete
all employees with rating 5, we
lose the information about the
wage for rating 5!

But why does R → W cause an anomaly when S→ W does not?

S is a key but R is not!

15
How do we fix this?
Hourly_Emps
S N L R W H
• Decomposing relations:
123-22-3666 Attishoo 48 8 10 40
• Dividing a relation into
231-31-5368 Smiley 22 8 10 30
smaller relations (with
overlap!) 131-24-3650 Smethurst 35 5 7 30
• FDs guide this process 434-26-3751 Guldu 35 5 7 32
612-67-4134 Madayan 35 8 10 40
• Example:
• R → W is problematic so
we decompose SNLRWH

16
How do we fix this?
Hourly_Emps
S N L R W H
• Decomposing relations:
123-22-3666 Attishoo 48 8 10 40
• Dividing a relation into
231-31-5368 Smiley 22 8 10 30
smaller relations (with
overlap!) 131-24-3650 Smethurst 35 5 7 30
• FDs guide this process 434-26-3751 Guldu 35 5 7 32
612-67-4134 Madayan 35 8 10 40
• Example:
Hourly_Emps2
• R → W is problematic so S N L R H
we decompose SNLRWH
123-22-3666 Attishoo 48 8 40
Wages
R W 231-31-5368 Smiley 22 8 30
8 10 131-24-3650 Smethurst 35 5 30
5 7 434-26-3751 Guldu 35 5 32
612-67-4134 Madayan 35 8 40 17
Reasoning About FDs
• Given some FDs, we can usually infer additional FDs:
• ssn → did, did → lot implies ssn → lot
• An FD f is implied by a set of FDs F if f holds whenever all FDs in F
hold.
• F += closure of F is the set of all FDs that are implied by F.
• Armstrong’s Axioms (X, Y, Z are sets of attributes):
• Reflexivity: If X  Y, then Y → X
• Augmentation: If X → Y, then XZ → YZ for any Z
• Transitivity: If X → Y and Y → Z, then X → Z
• These are sound and complete inference rules for FDs!

18
Reasoning About FDs
• Given some FDs, we can usually infer additional FDs:
• ssn → did, did → lot implies ssn → lot
• An FD f is implied by a set of FDs F if f holds whenever all FDs in F
hold.
• F += closure of F is the set of all FDs that are implied by F.
• Armstrong’s Axioms (X, Y, Z are sets of attributes):
• Reflexivity: If X  Y, then Y → X
• Augmentation: If X → Y, then XZ → YZ for any Z
• Transitivity: If X → Y and Y → Z, then X → Z
• These are sound and complete inference rules for FDs!

Using AA, we can get only the FDs in F+ and all these FDs
19
Reasoning About FDs (Contd.)
• Couple of additional rules (that follow from AA):
• Union: If X → Y and X → Z, then X → YZ
• Decomposition: If X → YZ, then X → Y and X →Z
• Example: Contracts(cid,sid,jid,did,pid,qty,value), and:
• C is the key: C → CSJDPQV
• Job (J) purchases each part (P) using single contract (C): JP → C
• Dept (D) purchases at most one part (P) from a supplier (S): SD → P
• Problem: Prove that SDJ is a key for Contracts
• JP → C, C → CSJDPQV imply JP → CSJDPQV (a key by transitivity)
• SD → P implies SDJ → JP (by augmentation)
• SDJ →JP, JP → CSJDPQV imply SDJ → CSJDPQV (a key by transitivity)

Can we say that SD → CSDPQV?

20
Reasoning About FDs (Contd.)
• Couple of additional rules (that follow from AA):
• Union: If X → Y and X → Z, then X → YZ
• Decomposition: If X → YZ, then X → Y and X →Z
• Example: Contracts(cid,sid,jid,did,pid,qty,value), and:
• C is the key: C → CSJDPQV
• Job (J) purchases each part (P) using single contract (C): JP → C
• Dept (D) purchases at most one part (P) from a supplier (S): SD → P
• Problem: Prove that SDJ is a key for Contracts
• JP → C, C → CSJDPQV imply JP → CSJDPQV (a key by transitivity)
• SD → P implies SDJ → JP (by augmentation)
• SDJ →JP, JP → CSJDPQV imply SDJ → CSJDPQV (a key by transitivity)

Can we say that SD → CSDPQV? No!

21
Reasoning About FDs (Contd.)
• Computing the closure of a set of FDs can be expensive. (Size of
closure is exponential in # attrs!)
• Typically, we just want to check if a given FD X → Y is in the
closure of a set of FDs F. An efficient check:
•
+
Compute attribute closure of X (denoted X ) wrt F:
• Set of all attributes A such that X → A is in F
+
• There is a linear time algorithm to compute this.
• Check if Y is in X +
• Does F = {A → B, B → C, C D → E } imply A → E?
+
• i.e, is A → E in the closure F ? Equivalently, is E in A+ ?

22
Reasoning About FDs (Contd.)
• How to check that X →Y is in F+.
• Computing X+ wrt. F:
• X+ :=X
• Repeat until no change (fixpoint):
For U → V  F
If U  X+, then add V to X+
• Check if Y is in X+
• Approach can also be used to check for keys of a relation
• If X+ =R, then X is a superkey for R (R is all attributes)
• How to check that X is a candidate key, i.e. minimal key?
• For each attribute A in X, check if (X-A)+ = R

23
Example

• R = {A, B, C, D, E}
• F = {B →CD, D->E, B->A, E->C, AD->B}
• Is B -> E in F+

24
Normal Forms
• Returning to the issue of schema refinement, the first question to
ask is whether any refinement is needed!
• If a relation is in a certain normal form (BCNF, 3NF etc.), it is
known that certain kinds of problems are avoided/minimized. This
can be used to help us decide whether decomposing the relation
will help.
• Role of FDs in detecting redundancy:
• Consider a relation R with 3 attributes, ABC.
• No FDs hold: There is no redundancy here.
• Given A → B: Several tuples could have the same A value, and if so, they’ll all
have the same B value!

25
 Boyce-Codd Normal Form (BCNF) BCNF stands for Boyce-Codd Normal Form, and it's a higher
level of database normalization that refines the third normal
form (3NF). A relation is in BCNF if, for every non-trivial

• Reln R with FDs F is in BCNF if, for all X → A in F1.+X is a superkey.

functional dependency X Y in the relation:

• A  X (called a trivial FD), or

it means the set of attribute of A is in X 2. There are no non-prime attributes (attributes not part of
any candidate key) that are functionally dependent on X.

• X contains a key for R. In simpler terms, BCNF ensures that there are no non-trivial
functional dependencies where the determinant (X) is not a

• In other words, R is in BCNF if the only non-trivial

superkey. Achieving BCNF minimizes redundancy and
dependency issues in a relational database, enhancing data
integrity and reducing anomalies during data manipulation.
FDs that hold over R are key constraints. The process of achieving BCNF involves decomposing
• No dependency in R that can be predicted using FDs tables into smaller tables to eliminate potential issues. It's an
essential concept in database normalization, contributing to
alone. the efficiency and reliability of a relational database design.

• If we are shown two tuples that agree upon

the X value, we cannot infer the A value in
one tuple from the A value in the other. X Y A
• If example relation is in BCNF, the 2 tuples
must be identical (since X is a key). x y1 a
X is a superkey
if X determines Y we need to see if X is a superkey if it is, x y2 ?
this relation is BCNF

26
Third Normal Form (3NF)
• Reln R with FDs F is in 3NF if, for all X → A in F +
• A  X (called a trivial FD), or or rel-->A
as if AB-->A it is trivial

• X contains a key for R, or X is a superkey

if the left side is not superkey
• A is part of some key for R. A is part of the candidate key not any superkey
• Minimality of a key is crucial in third condition above!
• If R is in BCNF, obviously in 3NF.
• If R is in 3NF, some redundancy is possible. It is a compromise, used
when BCNF not achievable (e.g., no ``good’’ decomp, or performance
considerations).
• Lossless-join, dependency-preserving decomposition of R into a collection of
3NF relations always possible.

27
What Does 3NF Achieve?

• If 3NF violated by X → A, one of the following holds:

• X is a subset of some key K
• We store (X, A) pairs redundantly.
• X is not a proper subset of any key.
• There is a chain of FDs K → X → A, which means that we cannot associate an X
value with a K value unless we also associate an A value with an X value.
• But: even if reln is in 3NF, these problems could arise.
• e.g., Reserves SBDC, S → C, C → S is in 3NF, but for each
reservation of sailor S, same (S, C) pair is stored.
• Thus, 3NF is indeed a compromise relative to BCNF.

28
Decomposition of a Relation Scheme

• Suppose that relation R contains attributes A1 ... An. A

decomposition of R consists of replacing R by two or more
relations such that:
• Each new relation scheme contains a subset of the attributes of R (and no
attributes that do not appear in R), and
• Every attribute of R appears as an attribute of one of the new relations.
• Intuitively, decomposing R means we will store instances of the
relation schemes produced by the decomposition, instead of
instances of R.
• E.g., Can decompose SNLRWH into SNLRH and RW.

29
Example Decomposition

• Decompositions should be used only when needed.

• SNLRWH has FDs S → SNLRWH and R → W
• Second FD causes violation of 3NF; W values repeatedly associated with
R values. Easiest way to fix this is to create a relation RW to store these
associations, and to remove W from the main schema:
• i.e., we decompose SNLRWH into SNLRH and RW
• The information to be stored consists of SNLRWH tuples. If we
just store the projections of these tuples onto SNLRH and RW, are
there any potential problems that we should be aware of?

30
Problems with Decompositions

• There are three potential problems to consider:

• Some queries become more expensive.
• e.g., How much did sailor Joe earn? (salary = W*H)
• Given instances of the decomposed relations, we may not be able to
reconstruct the corresponding instancehe three
of major
theproblems
original
associatedrelation!
with decomposition in database design are:

• Fortunately, not in the SNLRWH example.Loss of Information (Lossy Decomposition):

The risk of losing data when breaking down a table into smaller ones, requiring careful
handling to ensure no information is lost during the process.
• Checking some dependencies may require joining the instances of the
decomposed relations. Update Anomalies:
Challenges arising from the need to update data in multiple tables, leading to insertion,
deletion, or modification anomalies that can result in inconsistencies.
• Fortunately, not in the SNLRWH example. Complex Queries and Joins:

• Tradeoff: Must consider these issues vs. redundancy.

Increased complexity in querying and joining data across multiple tables, impacting
performance and requiring thoughtful design and indexing strategies to address these
complexities.

31
Lossless Join Decompositions
• Decomposition of R into X and Y is lossless-join w.r.t. a set of FDs
F if, for every instance r that satisfies F:
•  X (r)   Y (r) = r
• It is always true that r   X (r)   Y (r)
• In general, the other direction does not hold! If it does, the decomposition
is lossless-join.
• Definition extended to decomposition into 3 or more relations in a
straightforward way.
• It is essential that all decompositions used to deal with redundancy
be lossless! (Avoids Problem (2).)

32
More on Lossless Join A B
1 2
A B C 4 5
• The decomposition of R into X and
1 2 3 7 2
Y is lossless-join wrt F if and only if
the closure of F contains: 4 5 6
B C
• X  Y → X, or
7 2 8
2 3
• X  Y → Y 5 6
• In particular, the decomposition of 2 8
A B C
R into UV and R - V is lossless-join
if U → V holds over R. 1 2 3
4 5 6
7 2 8
1 2 8
7 2 3
33
Dependency Preserving Decomposition

• Consider CSJDPQV, C is key, JP → C and SD → P.

• BCNF decomposition: CSJDQV and SDP
• Problem: Checking JP → C requires a join!
• Dependency preserving decomposition (Intuitive):
• If R is decomposed into X, Y and Z, and we enforce the FDs that hold on
X, on Y and on Z, then all FDs that were given to hold on R must also
hold. (Avoids Problem (3).)
• Projection of set of FDs F: If R is decomposed into X, ...
projection of F onto X (denoted FX ) is the set of FDs U → V in F+
(closure of F ) such that U, V are in X.

34
Dependency Preserving Decompositions
(Contd.)

• Decomposition of R into X and Y is dependency preserving if (FX union

FY ) + = F +
• i.e., if we consider only dependencies in the closure F + that can be checked in X
without considering Y, and in Y without considering X, these imply all
dependencies in F +.
• Important to consider F +, not F, in this definition:
• ABC, A → B, B → C, C → A, decomposed into AB and BC.
• Is this dependency preserving? Is C → A preserved?????
• Dependency preserving does not imply lossless join:
• ABC, A → B, decomposed into AB and BC.
• And vice-versa! (Example?)

35
Decomposition into BCNF

• Consider relation R with FDs F. If X → Y violates BCNF,

decompose R into R - Y and XY.
• Repeated application of this idea will give us a collection of relations that
are in BCNF; lossless join decomposition, and guaranteed to terminate.
• e.g., CSJDPQV, key C, JP → C, SD → P, J → S
• To deal with SD → P, decompose into SDP, CSJDQV.
• To deal with J → S, decompose CSJDQV into JS and CJDQV
• In general, several dependencies may cause violation of BCNF.
The order in which we ``deal with’’ them could lead to very different
sets of relations!

36
BCNF and Dependency Preservation
• In general, there may not be a dependency preserving
decomposition into BCNF.
• e.g., CSZ, CS → Z, Z → C
• Can’t decompose while preserving 1st FD; not in BCNF.
• Similarly, decomposition of CSJDQV into SDP, JS and CJDQV is
not dependency preserving (w.r.t. the FDs JP → C, SD → P
and J → S).
• However, it is a lossless join decomposition.
• In this case, adding JPC to the collection of relations gives us a
dependency preserving decomposition.
• JPC tuples stored only for checking FD! (Redundancy!)

37
Decomposition into 3NF

• Obviously, the algorithm for lossless join decomp into BCNF can
be used to obtain a lossless join decomp into 3NF (typically, can
stop earlier).
• To ensure dependency preservation, one idea:
• If X → Y is not preserved, add relation XY.

• Problem is that XY may violate 3NF! e.g., consider the addition of CJP to
`preserve’ JP → C. What if we also have J → C ?
• Refinement: Instead of the given set of FDs F, use a minimal
cover for F.

38
Minimal Cover for a Set of FDs
• Minimal cover G for a set of FDs F:
• Closure of F = closure of G.
• Right hand side of each FD in G is a single attribute.
• If we modify G by deleting an FD or by deleting attributes from an FD in G, the
closure changes.
• Intuitively, every FD in G is needed, and ``as small as possible’’ in order
to get the same closure as F.
• e.g., A → B, ABCD → E, EF → GH, ACDF → EG has the
following minimal cover:
• A → B, ACD → E, EF →G and EF → H
• M.C. → Lossless-Join, Dep. Pres. Decomp!!! (in book)

39
Refining an ER Diagram
Before:
• 1st diagram translated:
since
Workers(S,N,L,D,S) name dname
Departments(D,M,B) ssn lot did budget
• Lots associated with workers.
• Suppose all workers in a dept are Employees Works_In Departments
assigned the same lot: D → L
• Redundancy; fixed by:
Workers2(S,N,D,S) After:
Dept_Lots(D,L) budget
since
• Can fine-tune this: name dname
Workers2(S,N,D,S) ssn did lot
Departments(D,M,B,L)
Employees Works_In Departments

40
Summary of Schema Refinement
• If a relation is in BCNF, it is free of redundancies that can be
detected using FDs. Thus, trying to ensure that all relations are in
BCNF is a good heuristic.
• If a relation is not in BCNF, we can try to decompose it into a
collection of BCNF relations.
• Must consider whether all FDs are preserved. If a lossless-join,
dependency preserving decomposition into BCNF is not possible (or
unsuitable, given typical queries), should consider decomposition into
3NF.
• Decompositions should be carried out and/or re-examined while keeping
performance requirements in mind.

41