CSE202 Database Management Systems

Lecture #8

Prepared & Presented by Asst. Prof. Dr. Samsun M. BAŞARICI

 Learning Objectives

 Overview of some informal design guidelines for relation

schemas
 Understanding functional dependencies
 Recognizing normal forms based on primary keys
 Defining and differentiating second and third normal forms
 Understanding Boyce-Codd normal form
 Discriminating multivalued dependency and fourth normal form
 Understanding join dependencies and fifth normal form
 Applying relational database design algorithms

2
 Outline
 Informal design guidelines for relation schemas
 Functional dependencies
 Normal forms based on primary keys
 General definitions of second and third normal forms
 Boyce-Codd normal form
 Multivalued dependency and fourth normal form
 Join dependencies and fifth normal form
 Relational database design algorithms

3
 Part 1
Dependencies & Normal Forms

4
 Introduction

 Levels at which we can discuss goodness of relation

schemas
Logical (or conceptual) level
Implementation (or physical storage) level
 Approaches to database design:
Bottom-up or top-down

5
Informal Design Guidelines for Relation Schemas

 Measures of quality
Making sure attribute semantics are clear
Reducing redundant information in tuples
Reducing NULL values in tuples
Disallowing possibility of generating spurious tuples

6
Imparting Clear Semantics to Attributes in Relations

 Semantics of a relation
Meaning resulting from interpretation of attribute values in
a tuple
 Easier to explain semantics of relation
Indicates better schema design

7
 Guideline 1

 Design relation schema so that it is easy to explain its

meaning
 Do not combine attributes from multiple entity types and
relationship types into a single relation
 Example of violating Guideline 1: Figure 15.3

8
Guideline 1 (cont.)

9
Redundant Information in Tuples and Update Anomalies

 Grouping attributes into relation schemas

Significant effect on storage space
 Storing natural joins of base relations leads to update
anomalies
 Types of update anomalies:
Insertion
Deletion
Modification

10
 Guideline 2

 Design base relation schemas so that no update anomalies

are present in the relations
 If any anomalies are present:
Note them clearly
Make sure that the programs that update the database will
operate correctly

11
 NULL Values in Tuples

 May group many attributes together into a “fat” relation

Can end up with many NULLs
 Problems with NULLs
Wasted storage space
Problems understanding meaning

12
 Guideline 3

 Avoid placing attributes in a base relation whose values

may frequently be NULL
 If NULLs are unavoidable:
Make sure that they apply in exceptional cases only, not to a
majority of tuples

13
 Generation of Spurious Tuples

 Figure 15.5(a)
Relation schemas EMP_LOCS and EMP_PROJ1
 NATURAL JOIN
Result produces many more tuples than the original set of
tuples in EMP_PROJ
Called spurious tuples
Represent spurious information that is not valid

14
 Guideline 4

 Design relation schemas to be joined with equality

conditions on attributes that are appropriately related
Guarantees that no spurious tuples are generated
 Avoid relations that contain matching attributes that are
not (foreign key, primary key) combinations

16
Summary and Discussion of Design Guidelines

 Anomalies cause redundant work to be done

 Waste of storage space due to NULLs
 Difficulty of performing operations and joins due to
NULL values
 Generation of invalid and spurious data during joins

17
 Functional Dependencies

 Formal tool for analysis of relational schemas

 Enables us to detect and describe some of the above-
mentioned problems in precise terms
 Theory of functional dependency

18
 Definition of Functional Dependency

 Constraint between two sets of attributes from the

database

 Property of semantics or meaning of the attributes

 Legal relation states
Satisfy the functional dependency constraints

19
Definition of Functional Dependency (cont.)

 Given a populated relation

Cannot determine which FDs hold and which do not
Unless meaning of and relationships among attributes
known
Can state that FD does not hold if there are tuples that show
violation of such an FD

20
 Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys

 Normalization process
 Approaches for relational schema design
Perform a conceptual schema design using a conceptual
model then map conceptual design into a set of relations
Design relations based on external knowledge derived from
existing implementation of files or forms or reports

21
 Normalization of Relations

 Takes a relation schema through a series of tests

Certify whether it satisfies a certain normal form
Proceeds in a top-down fashion
 Normal form tests

22
 Normalization of Relations (cont.)

 Properties that the relational schemas should have:

Nonadditive join property
 Extremely critical
Dependency preservation property
 Desirable but sometimes sacrificed for other factors

23
 Practical Use of Normal Forms

 Normalization carried out in practice

Resulting designs are of high quality and meet the desirable
properties stated previously
Pays particular attention to normalization only up to 3NF,
BCNF, or at most 4NF
 Do not need to normalize to the highest possible normal
form

24
Definitions of Keys and Attributes Participating in Keys

 Definition of superkey and key

 Candidate key
If more than one key in a relation schema
 One is primary key
 Others are secondary keys

25
 First Normal Form

 Part of the formal definition of a relation in the basic (flat)

relational model
 Only attribute values permitted are single atomic (or
indivisible) values
 Techniques to achieve first normal form
Remove attribute and place in separate relation
Expand the key
Use several atomic attributes

26
 First Normal Form (cont.)

 Does not allow nested relations

Each tuple can have a relation within it
 To change to 1NF:
Remove nested relation attributes into a new relation
Propagate the primary key into it
Unnest relation into a set of 1NF relations

27
28
 Second Normal Form

 Based on concept of full functional dependency

Versus partial dependency

 Second normalize into a number of 2NF relations

Nonprime attributes are associated only with part of
primary key on which they are fully functionally dependent

29
 Third Normal Form

 Based on concept of transitive dependency

 Problematic FD
Left-hand side is part of primary key
Left-hand side is a nonkey attribute

30
General Definitions of Second and Third Normal Forms

31
General Definitions of Second and Third Normal Forms
(cont.)

 Prime attribute
Part of any candidate key will be considered as prime
 Consider partial, full functional, and transitive
dependencies with respect to all candidate keys of a
relation

32
General Definition of Second Normal Form

33
34
35
 Boyce-Codd Normal Form

 Every relation in BCNF is also in 3NF

Relation in 3NF is not necessarily in BCNF

 Difference:
Condition which allows A to be prime is absent from BCNF
 Most relation schemas that are in 3NF are also in BCNF

36
37
Multivalued Dependency and Fourth Normal Form

 Multivalued dependency (MVD)

Consequence of first normal form (1NF)

38
Multivalued Dependency and Fourth Normal Form
(cont.)

 Relations containing nontrivial MVDs

All-key relations
 Fourth normal form (4NF)
Violated when a relation has undesirable multivalued
dependencies

39
 Join Dependencies and Fifth Normal Form

 Join dependency
 Multiway decomposition into fifth normal form (5NF)
 Very peculiar semantic constraint
Normalization into 5NF is very rarely done in practice

40
41
 Part 2
Relational DB Design Algorithms

42
 Designing a Set of Relations (1)

 The Approach of Relational Synthesis (Bottom-up

Design):
Assumes that all possible functional dependencies are
known.
First constructs a minimal set of FDs
Then applies algorithms that construct a target set of 3NF or
BCNF relations.
Additional criteria may be needed to ensure the the set of
relations in a relational database are satisfactory.

43
 Designing a Set of Relations (2)

 Goals:
Lossless join property (a must)
 Algorithm 16.3 tests for general losslessness.
Dependency preservation property
 Algorithm 16.5 decomposes a relation into BCNF components by
sacrificing the dependency preservation.
Additional normal forms
 4NF (based on multi-valued dependencies)
 5NF (based on join dependencies)

44
1. Properties of Relational Decompositions (1)

 Relation Decomposition and

Insufficiency of Normal Forms:
Universal Relation Schema:
A relation schema R = {A1, A2, …, An}
that includes all the attributes of the
database.
Universal relation assumption:
Every attribute name is unique.

45
Properties of Relational Decompositions (2)

 Relation Decomposition and Insufficiency of

Normal Forms (cont.):
Decomposition:
 The process of decomposing the universal relation schema R into
a set of relation schemas D = {R1,R2, …, Rm} that will become
the relational database schema by using the functional
dependencies.
Attribute preservation condition:
 Each attribute in R will appear in at least one relation schema Ri
in the decomposition so that no attributes are “lost”.

46
Properties of Relational Decompositions (2)

 Another goal of decomposition is to have each individual

relation Ri in the decomposition D be in BCNF or 3NF.
 Additional properties of decomposition are needed to
prevent from generating spurious tuples

47
Properties of Relational Decompositions (3)

 Dependency Preservation Property of a

Decomposition:
Definition: Given a set of dependencies F on R, the
projection of F on Ri, denoted by pRi(F) where Ri is a subset
of R, is the set of dependencies X  Y in F+ such that the
attributes in X υ Y are all contained in Ri.
Hence, the projection of F on each relation schema R in the
i
decomposition D is the set of functional dependencies in F+,
the closure of F, such that all their left- and right-hand-side
attributes are in Ri.

48
Properties of Relational Decompositions (4)

 Dependency Preservation Property of a Decomposition

(cont.):
Dependency Preservation Property:
 A decomposition D = {R1, R2, ..., Rm} of R is dependency-
preserving with respect to F if the union of the projections of F
on each Ri in D is equivalent to F; that is
((R1(F)) υ . . . υ (Rm(F)))+ = F+
 (See examples in Fig 15.13a and Fig 15.12)

 Claim 1:
It is always possible to find a dependency-preserving
decomposition D with respect to F such that each relation Ri
in D is in 3nf.

49
Properties of Relational Decompositions (5)

 Lossless (Non-additive) Join Property of a Decomposition:

 Definition: Lossless join property: a decomposition D = {R1, R2, ...,
Rm} of R has the lossless (nonadditive) join property with respect
to the set of dependencies F on R if, for every relation state r of R
that satisfies F, the following holds, where * is the natural join of all
the relations in D:
* ( R1(r), ..., Rm(r)) = r
 Note: The word loss in lossless refers to loss of information, not to
loss of tuples. In fact, for “loss of information” a better term is
“addition of spurious information”

50
 Properties of Relational Decompositions (6)

 Lossless (Non-additive) Join Property of a Decomposition (cont.):

 Algorithm 16.3: Testing for Lossless Join Property
 Input: A universal relation R, a decomposition D = {R1, R2, ..., Rm}
of R, and a set F of functional dependencies.
1. Create an initial matrix S with one row i for each relation Ri in D, and one
column j for each attribute Aj in R.
2. Set S(i,j):=bij for all matrix entries. (* each bij is a distinct symbol
associated with indices (i,j) *).
3. For each row i representing relation schema Ri
{for each column j representing attribute Aj
{if (relation Ri includes attribute Aj) then set S(i,j):= aj;};};
 (* each aj is a distinct symbol associated with index (j) *)

51
 Properties of Relational Decompositions (7)

 Lossless (Non-additive) Join Property of a Decomposition (cont.):

 Algorithm 16.3: Testing for Lossless Join Property
4. Repeat the following loop until a complete loop execution results in no changes to S
{for each functional dependency X Y in F
{for all rows in S which have the same symbols in the columns corresponding to
attributes in X
{make the symbols in each column that correspond to an attribute in Y
be the same in all these rows as follows:
If any of the rows has an “a” symbol for the column, set the
other rows to that same “a” symbol in the column.
If no “a” symbol exists for the attribute in any of the rows,
choose one of the “b” symbols that appear in one of the rows for the attribute and set the other
rows to that same “b” symbol in the column ;};
};
};
5. If a row is made up entirely of “a” symbols, then the decomposition has the lossless join
property; otherwise it does not.

52
Lossless (nonadditive) join test for n-ary decompositions.
(a) Case 1: Decomposition of EMP_PROJ into EMP_PROJ1 and
EMP_LOCS fails test.
(b) A decomposition of EMP_PROJ that has the lossless join property.

53
 Properties of Relational Decompositions (9)
Lossless (nonadditive) join test for n-ary
decompositions.
(c) Case 2: Decomposition of EMP_PROJ into EMP,
PROJECT, and WORKS_ON satisfies test.

54
Properties of Relational Decompositions (10)

 Testing Binary Decompositions for Lossless Join

Property
Binary Decomposition: Decomposition of a relation R into
two relations.
PROPERTY LJ1 (lossless join test for binary
decompositions): A decomposition D = {R1, R2} of R has
the lossless join property with respect to a set of functional
dependencies F on R if and only if either
 The f.d. ((R1 ∩ R2)  (R1- R2)) is in F+, or
 The f.d. ((R1 ∩ R2)  (R2 - R1)) is in F+.

55
Properties of Relational Decompositions (11)

 Successive Lossless Join Decomposition:

Claim 2 (Preservation of non-additivity in successive
decompositions):
 If a decomposition D = {R1, R2, ..., Rm} of R has the lossless
(non-additive) join property with respect to a set of functional
dependencies F on R,
 and if a decomposition Di = {Q1, Q2, ..., Qk} of Ri has the

lossless (non-additive) join property with respect to the projection

of F on Ri,
 then the decomposition D2 = {R1, R2, ..., Ri-1, Q1, Q2, ..., Qk,

Ri+1, ..., Rm} of R has the non-additive join property with respect
to F.

56
2. Algorithms for Relational Database Schema Design
(1)

 Algorithm 16.4: Relational Synthesis into 3NF with Dependency

Preservation (Relational Synthesis Algorithm)
 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 υ {A1} υ {A2} ...
υ {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. Place any remaining attributes (that have not been placed in any relation) in
a single relation schema to ensure the attribute preservation property.
 Claim 3: Every relation schema created by Algorithm 16.4 is in
3NF.

57
Algorithms for Relational Database Schema Design (2)

 Algorithm 16.5: Relational Decomposition into BCNF with Lossless

(non-additive) 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 υ Y);
};

Assumption: No null values are allowed for the join attributes.

58
Algorithms for Relational Database Schema Design (3)

 Algorithm 16.6 Relational Synthesis into 3NF with Dependency

Preservation and Lossless (Non-Additive) 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 υ {A1} υ {A2} ...
υ {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.
(Use Algorithm 16.4a to find the key of R)

59
Algorithms for Relational Database Schema Design (4)

 Algorithm 16.2a Finding a Key K for R Given a set F

of Functional Dependencies
Input: A universal 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};
}

60
61
62
63
64
Algorithms for Relational Database Schema Design (8)

 Discussion of Normalization Algorithms:

 Problems:
The database designer must first specify all the relevant
functional dependencies among the database attributes.
These algorithms are not deterministic in general.
It is not always possible to find a decomposition into
relation schemas that preserves dependencies and allows
each relation schema in the decomposition to be in BCNF
(instead of 3NF as in Algorithm 16.6).

65
66
(a) The EMP relation with two MVDs: ENAME —>> PNAME and
ENAME —>> DNAME.
(b) Decomposing the EMP relation into two 4NF relations
EMP_PROJECTS and EMP_DEPENDENTS.

67
(c) The relation SUPPLY with no MVDs is in 4NF but not in 5NF if it has
the JD(R1, R2, R3). (d) Decomposing the relation SUPPLY into the
5NF relations R1, R2, and R3.

68
Multivalued Dependencies and Fourth Normal Form
(3)
Definition:
 A multivalued dependency (MVD) X —>> Y specified on relation
schema R, where X and Y are both subsets of R, specifies the following
constraint on any relation state r of R: If two tuples t1 and t2 exist in r such
that t1[X] = t2[X], then two tuples t3 and t4 should also exist in r with the
following properties, where we use Z to denote (R 2 (X υ Y)):
 t3[X] = t4[X] = t1[X] = t2[X].
 t3[Y] = t1[Y] and t4[Y] = t2[Y].
 t3[Z] = t2[Z] and t4[Z] = t1[Z].
 An MVD X —>> Y in R is called a trivial MVD if (a) Y is a subset of X,
or (b) X υ Y = R.

69
Multivalued Dependencies and Fourth Normal Form
(4)
 Inference Rules for Functional and
Multivalued Dependencies:
 IR1 (reflexive rule for FDs): If X  Y, then X –> Y.
 IR2 (augmentation rule for FDs): {X –> Y}  XZ –> YZ.
 IR3 (transitive rule for FDs): {X –> Y, Y –>Z}  X –> Z.
 IR4 (complementation rule for MVDs): {X —>> Y}  X —>>
(R – (X  Y))}.
 IR5 (augmentation rule for MVDs): If X —>> Y and W  Z
then WX —>> YZ.
 IR6 (transitive rule for MVDs): {X —>> Y, Y —>> Z}  X —>> (Z
2 Y).
 IR7 (replication rule for FD to MVD): {X –> Y}  X —>> Y.
 IR8 (coalescence rule for FDs and MVDs): If X —>> Y and there
exists W with the properties that
 (a) W  Y is empty, (b) W –> Z, and (c) Y  Z, then X –> Z.

70
Multivalued Dependencies and Fourth Normal Form
(5)
Definition:
 A relation schema R is in 4NF with respect to a set of
dependencies F (that includes functional dependencies and
multivalued dependencies) if, for every nontrivial
multivalued dependency X —>> Y in F+, X is a superkey for
R.
 Note: F+ is the (complete) set of all dependencies (functional
or multivalued) that will hold in every relation state r of R that
satisfies F. It is also called the closure of F.

71
72
 Multivalued Dependencies and Fourth Normal Form (7)

Lossless (Non-additive) Join Decomposition into 4NF

Relations:
 PROPERTY LJ1’
 The relation schemas R1 and R2 form a lossless (non-
additive) join decomposition of R with respect to a set F
of functional and multivalued dependencies if and only if
 (R1 ∩ R2) —>> (R1 - R2)
 or by symmetry, if and only if
 (R1 ∩ R2) —>> (R2 - R1)).

73
 Multivalued Dependencies and Fourth Normal Form (8)
Algorithm 16.7: Relational decomposition into 4NF relations
with non-additive join property
 Input: A universal relation R and a set of functional and multivalued
dependencies F.

1. Set D := { R };
2. While there is a relation schema Q in D that is not in 4NF do {
choose a relation schema Q in D that is not in 4NF;
find a nontrivial MVD X —>> Y in Q that violates 4NF;
replace Q in D by two relation schemas (Q - Y) and (X υ Y);
};

74
 4. Join Dependencies and Fifth Normal Form (1)

Definition:
 A join dependency (JD), denoted by JD(R1, R2, ..., Rn),
specified on relation schema R, specifies a constraint on the
states r of R.
 The constraint states that every legal state r of R should have a
non-additive join decomposition into R1, R2, ..., Rn; that is, for
every such r we have
 * (R1(r), R2(r), ..., Rn(r)) = r
Note: an MVD is a special case of a JD where n = 2.
 A join dependency JD(R1, R2, ..., Rn), specified on relation
schema R, is a trivial JD if one of the relation schemas Ri in
JD(R1, R2, ..., Rn) is equal to R.
75
 Join Dependencies and Fifth Normal Form (2)

Definition:
 A relation schema R is in fifth normal form (5NF) (or
Project-Join Normal Form (PJNF)) with respect to a
set F of functional, multivalued, and join dependencies
if,
 for every nontrivial join dependency JD(R1, R2, ..., Rn) in
F+ (that is, implied by F),
 every Ri is a superkey of R.

76
Relation SUPPLY with Join Dependency and
Conversion to Fifth Normal Form

77
 5. Inclusion Dependencies (1)
Definition:
 An inclusion dependency R.X < S.Y between two sets of
attributes—X of relation schema R, and Y of relation schema S
—specifies the constraint that, at any specific time when r is a
relation state of R and s a relation state of S, we must have

X(r(R))  Y(s(S))
 Note:
 The ? (subset) relationship does not necessarily have to be a
proper subset.
 The sets of attributes on which the inclusion dependency is
specified—X of R and Y of S—must have the same number of
attributes.
 In addition, the domains for each pair of corresponding
attributes should be compatible.

78
 Inclusion Dependencies (2)

 Objective of Inclusion Dependencies:

 To formalize two types of interrelational constraints which
cannot be expressed using F.D.s or MVDs:
 Referential integrity constraints
 Class/subclass relationships

 Inclusion dependency inference rules

 IDIR1 (reflexivity): R.X < R.X.
 IDIR2 (attribute correspondence): If R.X < S.Y
 where X = {A1, A2 ,..., An} and Y = {B1,
B2, ..., Bn} and Ai Corresponds-to Bi, then R.Ai <
S.Bi
 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
 IDIR3 (transitivity): If R.X < S.Y and S.Y < T.Z, then R.X <
T.Z.
79
 6. Other Dependencies and Normal Forms (1)
Template Dependencies:
 Template dependencies provide a technique for representing constraints in
relations that typically have no easy and formal definitions.
 The idea is to specify a template—or example—that defines each
constraint or dependency.
 There are two types of templates:
 tuple-generating templates
 constraint-generating templates.
 A template consists of a number of hypothesis tuples that are meant to
show an example of the tuples that may appear in one or more relations.
The other part of the template is the template conclusion.

80
Other Dependencies and Normal Forms (2)

81
82
 Other Dependencies and Normal Forms (4)
Domain-Key Normal Form (DKNF):
 Definition:
 A relation schema is said to be in DKNF if all constraints and
dependencies that should hold on the valid relation states can be
enforced simply by enforcing the domain constraints and key
constraints on the relation.
 The idea is to specify (theoretically, at least) the “ultimate normal form”
that takes into account all possible types of dependencies and constraints. .
 For a relation in DKNF, it becomes very straightforward to enforce all
database constraints by simply checking that each attribute value in a tuple
is of the appropriate domain and that every key constraint is enforced.
 The practical utility of DKNF is limited

83
Additional Material (Again)
Logical DB Design

84
 Chapter 7
Logical Database
Design
Fundamentals of Database Management Systems,
2nd ed.
by
Mark L. Gillenson, Ph.D.
University of Memphis

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 Chapter Objectives
 Describe the concept of logical database
design.

 Design relational databases by converting

entity-relationship diagrams into relational
tables.

 Describe the data normalization process.

7-86
7-86
 Chapter Objectives
 Perform the data normalization process.

 Test tables for irregularities using the data

normalization process.

7-87
7-87
 Logical Database Design
 The process of deciding how to arrange
the attributes of the entities in the business
environment into database structures,
such as the tables of a relational
database.

 The goal is to create well structured tables

that properly reflect the company’s
business environment.
7-88
7-88
 Logical Design of Relational
Database Systems
 (1) The conversion of E-R diagrams into
relational tables.

 (2) The data normalization technique.

 (3) The use of the data normalization

technique to test the tables resulting from
the E-R diagram conversions.
7-89
7-89
Converting E-R Diagrams into
Relational Tables
 Each entity will convert to a table.

 Each many-to-many relationship or

associative entity will convert to a table.

 During the conversion, certain rules must

be followed to ensure that foreign keys
appear in their proper places in the tables.
7-90
7-90
 Converting a Simple Entity

 The table simply contains the attributes that were

specified in the entity box.

 Salesperson Number is underlined to indicate that it is

the unique identifier of the entity and the primary key of
the table.
7-91
7-91
Converting Entities in Binary
Relationships: One-to-One

 There are three options for designing tables to

represent this data.

7-92
7-92
One-to-One: Option #1

 The two entities are

combined into one
relational table.

7-93
7-93
One-to-One: Option #2
 Separate tables for the
SALESPERSON and
OFFICE entities, with
Office Number as a
foreign key in the
SALESPERSON table.

7-94
7-94
One-to-One: Option #3
 Separate tables for the
SALESPERSON and
OFFICE entities, with
Salesperson Number as a
foreign key in the OFFICE
table.

7-95
7-95
 Converting Entities in Binary
Relationships: One-to-Many

 The unique identifier of the entity on the “one side” of the

one-to-many relationship is placed as a foreign key in
the table representing the entity on the “many side.”

 So, the Salesperson Number attribute is placed in the

CUSTOMER table as a foreign key.
7-96
7-96
Converting Entities in Binary
Relationships: One-to-Many

7-97
7-97
Converting Entities in Binary
Relationships: Many-to-Many

 E-R diagram with the many-to-many binary

relationship and the equivalent diagram using an
associative entity.

7-98
7-98
Converting Entities in Binary
Relationships: Many-to-Many
 An E-R diagram with two entities in a many-to-
many relationship converts to three relational
tables.

 Each of the two entities converts to a table with

its own attributes but with no foreign keys
(regarding this relationship).

 In addition, there must be a third “many-to-

many” table for the many-to-many relationship.
7-99
7-99
Converting Entities in Binary
Relationships: Many-to-Many
 The primary key of SALE
is the combination of the
unique identifiers of the
two entities in the many-to-
many relationship.
Additional attributes are
the intersection data.

7-100
7-100
Converting Entities in Unary
Relationships: One-to-One
 With only one entity type
involved and with a one-to-
one relationship, the
conversion requires only
one table.

7-101
7-101
Converting Entities in Unary
Relationships: One-to-Many
 Very similar to the one-
to-one unary case.

7-102
7-102
Converting Entities in Unary
Relationships: Many-to-Many

 This relationship requires two tables in the conversion.

 The PRODUCT table has no foreign keys.

7-103
7-103
Converting Entities in Unary
Relationships: Many-to-Many

 A second table is created since in the conversion of a

many-to-many relationship of any degree — unary,
binary, or ternary — the number of tables will be equal to
the number of entity types (one, two, or three,
respectively) plus one more table for the many-to-many
relationship. 7-104
7-104
 Converting Entities in
Ternary Relationships

 The primary key of the SALE

table is the combination of
the unique identifiers of the
three entities involved, plus
the Date attribute. 7-105
7-105
 Designing the General
Hardware Company Database

7-106
7-106
Designing the Good Reading
Bookstores Database

7-107
7-107
Designing the World Music
Association Database

7-108
7-108
Designing the Lucky
Rent-A-Car Database

7-109
7-109
 The Data Normalization
Process
 A methodology for organizing attributes
into tables so that redundancy among the
nonkey attributes is eliminated.

 The output of the data normalization

process is a properly structured relational
database.

7-110
7-110
 The Data Normalization
Technique
 Input:
 all the attributes that must be incorporated into the
database

 a list of all the defining associations between the

attributes (i.e., the functional dependencies).
• a means of expressing that the value of one particular
attribute is associated with a single, specific value of another
attribute.

• If we know that one of these attributes has a particular value,

then the other attribute must have some other value.

7-111
7-111
 Functional Dependence

Salesperson Number Salesperson Name

 Salesperson Number is the determinant.

 The value of Salesperson Number determines

the value of Salesperson Name.

 Salesperson Name is functionally dependent

on Salesperson Number.
7-112
7-112
General Hardware Environment:
SALESPERSON and PRODUCT

7-113
7-113
 Steps in the Data
Normalization Process
 First Normal Form

 Second Normal Form

 Third Normal Form

7-114
7-114
 The Data Normalization
Process
 Once the attributes are arranged in third normal form,
the group of tables that they comprise is a well-
structured relational database with no data redundancy.

 A group of tables is said to be in a particular normal form

if every table in the group is in that normal form.

 The data normalization process is progressive.

 For example, if a group of tables is in second normal form, it is
also in first normal form.

7-115
7-115
General Hardware Company:
Unnormalized Data

 Records contain multivalued attributes. 7-116

7-116
 General Hardware Company:
First Normal Form

 The attributes under consideration have been listed in

one table, and a primary key has been established.

 The number of records has been increased so that every

attribute of every record has just one value.

 The multivalued attributes have been eliminated.

7-117
7-117
General Hardware Company:
First Normal Form

7-118
7-118
General Hardware Company:
First Normal Form
 First normal form is merely a starting point in the
normalization process.

 First normal form contains a great deal of data

redundancy.
 Three records involve salesperson 137, so there are
three places in which his name is listed as Baker, his
commission percentage is listed as 10, and so on.

 Two records involve product 19440 and this product’s

name is listed twice as Hammer and its unit price is
listed twice as 17.50.
7-119
7-119
General Hardware Company:
Second Normal Form
 No Partial Functional Dependencies
 Every nonkey attribute must be fully
functionally dependent on the entire key of
that table.

 A nonkey attribute cannot depend on only part

of the key.

7-120
7-120
 General Hardware Company:
Second Normal Form

 In SALESPERSON, Salesperson Number is the sole

primary key attribute. Every nonkey attribute of the table
is fully defined just by Salesperson Number.

 Similar logic for PRODUCT and QUANTITY tables.

7-121
7-121
General Hardware Company:
Second Normal Form

7-122
7-122
General Hardware Company:
Third Normal Form
 Does not allow transitive dependencies in
which one nonkey attribute is functionally
dependent on another.

 Nonkey attributes are not allowed to define

other nonkey attributes.

7-123
7-123
General Hardware Company:
Third Normal Form

7-124
7-124
General Hardware Company:
Third Normal Form

7-125
7-125
General Hardware Company:
Third Normal Form
 Important points about the third normal form
structure are:

 It is completely free of data redundancy.

 All foreign keys appear where needed to logically tie

together related tables.

 It is the same structure that would have been derived

from a properly drawn entity-relationship diagram of
the same business environment.

7-126
7-126
 Candidate Keys as
Determinants
 There is one exception to the rule that in third
normal form, nonkey attributes are not allowed
to define other nonkey attributes.

 The rule does not hold if the defining nonkey

attribute is a candidate key of the table.

 Candidate keys in a relation may define other

nonkey attributes without violating third normal
form.
7-127
7-127
General Hardware Company:
Functional Dependencies

7-128
7-128
General Hardware Company:
First Normal Form

7-129
7-129
Good Reading Bookstores:
Functional Dependencies

7-130
7-130
World Music Association:
Functional Dependencies

7-131
7-131
 Lucky Rent-A-Car:
Functional Dependencies

7-132
7-132
 Data Normalization Check
 The basic idea in checking the structural
worthiness of relational tables, created
through E-R diagram conversion, with the
data normalization rules is to:
 Check to see if there are any partial functional
dependencies.

 Check to see if there are any transitive

dependencies.
7-133
7-133
 Creating a Table with SQL
CREATE TABLE SALESPERSON
(SPNUM CHAR(3) PRIMARY KEY,
SPNAME CHAR(12)
COMMPERCT DECIMAL(3,0)
YEARHIRE CHAR(4)
OFFNUM CHAR(3) );

Dropping a Table with SQL

DROP TABLE SALESPERSON;

7-134
7-134
 Creating a View with SQL
CREATE VIEW EMPLOYEE AS
SELECT SPNUM, SPNAME, YEARHIRE
FROM SLAESPERSON;

Dropping a View with SQL

DROP VIEW EMPLOYEE ;

7-135
7-135
 The SQL Update, Insert, and
Delete Commands
UPDATE SALESPERSON
SET COMMPERCT = 12
WHERE SPNUM = ‘204’;

INSERT INTO SALESPERSON

VALUES
(‘489’, ‘Quinlan’, 15, ‘2011’, ‘59’);

DELETE FROM SALESPERSON

WHERE SPNUM = ‘186’;
7-136
7-136
 Next Lecture

Physical DB Design, Files, Hashes, Indexing

137
 References

 Ramez Elmasri, Shamkant Navathe; “Fundamentals of

Database Systems”, 6th Ed., Pearson, 2014
 Mark L. Gillenson; “Fundamentals of Database
Management Systems”, 2nd Ed., John Wiley, 2012
 Universität Hamburg, Fachbereich Informatik,
Einführung in Datenbanksysteme, Lecture Notes,
1999

138