Database Design &

Schema Refinement

Professor Navneet Goyal

Department of Computer Science & Information Systems
BITS, Pilani

Topics

Database Design Steps

Redundancy
Schema Refinement

Minimizing Redundancy

Functional Dependencies (FDs)

Normalization using FDs

First Normal Form (1NF)

Second Normal Form (2NF)
Third Normal Form (3NF)
Boyce-Codd Normal Form (BCNF)
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Database Design Steps

Requirements Analysis
Conceptual Modeling (ER Model)
Logical Modeling (Relational Model)
Schema Refinement (Normalization)

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Redundancy

Same information at many places in

the DB
Problems:

Wastage of Space
Update Anomalies
Update Anomaly
Insert Anomaly
Delete Anomaly

Normalization is used for

minimizing redundancy
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Update Anomalies
Consider the relation:
EMP_PROJ ( Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname, No_hours)

Update Anomaly:

Insert Anomaly:

Changing the name of project

number P1 from Billing to Customer-Accounting may
cause this update to be made for all 100 employees
working on project P1
Cannot insert a project unless
an employee is assigned to it
Inversely - Cannot insert an employee unless he/she is
assigned to a project.

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Update Anomalies
Consider the relation:
EMP_PROJ ( Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname, No_hours)

Delete Anomaly:

When a project is deleted, it will

result in deleting all the employees who work on that
project. Alternately, if an employee is the sole employee on
a project, deleting that employee would result in deleting
the corresponding project

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Solution
Decompose the relation:
EMP_PROJ ( Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname, No_hours)
Into the following smaller relations:
EMP (Emp#, Ename)
PROJ (Proj#, Pname)
EMP_PROJ ( Emp#, Proj#, No_hours)

What happened to update anomalies?

We need to find out the basis for
decomposing a relation to get rid of
update anomalies
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Redundancy

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 a reason to decompose a relation?

What problems (if any) does the decomposition
cause?
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional
Dependencies

Constraints on the set of legal

relations
Require that the value for a certain
set of attributes determines uniquely
the value for another set of attributes
A functional dependency is a
generalization of the notion of a key

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional Dependencies

A functional dependency X Y holds over relation R if,

for every allowable instance r of R:
Y
t1 r, t2 r,
X (t1) = X(t2) implies Y(t1) =

An FD is a statement about all allowable instances of a

relation

(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.)

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

However, K

require K to be minimal!
R does not
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional Dependencies

Let R be a relation schema

R and R
The functional dependency

holds on R if and only if for any legal relations r(R),

whenever any two tuples t1 and t2 of r agree on the
attributes , they also agree on the attributes . That is,
t1[] = t2 [] t1[ ] = t2 [ ]
Example: Consider r(A,B ) with the following instance of
r.

1
1
3
On this instance, A B
hold.

4
5
7
does NOT hold, but B A does

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional Dependencies
A B

As

Bs

u
If t & u Then
agree they must
here
agree
here
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional Dependencies

K is a superkey for relation schema R if and only if K R

K is a candidate key for R if and only if

K R, and
for no K, R

Functional dependencies allow us to express constraints

that cannot be expressed using superkeys. Consider the
schema:
bor_loan = (customer_id, loan_number, amount )
We expect this functional dependency to hold:
loan_number amount
but would not expect the following to hold:
amount customer_name
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional Dependencies

A functional dependency is trivial if it

is satisfied by all instances of a
relation

Example:
customer_name, loan_number
customer_name
customer_name customer_name

In general, is trivial if

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional Dependencies

Consider the relation:

PLOTS (prop#, state, plot#, area, price, Tax_rate)

Information about plots available in India. The constraints
on the relation are:

Prop# is unique throughout India

Plot# are unique within a given state
For a given_state, tax_rate is fixed
Plots having the same area have the same price, irrespective
of the state in which they are located

Write all the FDs on the relation

PLOTS
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional Dependencies
PLOTS

Prop#

State

Plot#

Area

Price

Tax_rate

FD1

PK

FD2

CK
FD3
FD4

Identify redundancy in PLOTS

Identify update anomalies in PLOTS
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Functional Dependencies
PLOTS

Prop#

State

Plot#

Area

FD1

PK

FD2

CK

State
FD3

Area

Tax_rate
FD4

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Price

Normal Forms

Normal Forms based on PK

Normal Forms based on CKs

2 NF
3 NF
Boyce-Codd Normal Form (BCNF)

Other Normal Forms

4 NF (Multivalued Dependencies)
5 NF (Join Dependencies)
Deal with very rare practical situations

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

2 NF

Based on the concept of Full FDs (FFD)

If A & B are sets of attributes of R, B is said to
be FFD on A if AB, but no proper subset of A
determines B
No partial dependencies on the PK
Is PLOTS in 2NF?
YES
Single attribute PK
All relations with single attribute PK are in 2
NF!!
2 NF applies to relations with composite keys

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

2 NF

A relation that is in 1NF & every

non-PK attribute is fully
functionally dependent on the PK,
is said to be in 2 NF
1 NF

Remove all

2 NF

Partial Dependencies

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

3 NF

Based on the concept of transitive

dependency
No non-PK attribute should be
transitively dependent on the PK
Transitive Dependency
If AB & BC, then A transitively
determines C through B, provided B & C
do not determine A
Is PLOTS in 3NF?
NO
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

3 NF
PLOTS

Prop#

State

Plot#

Area

Price

Tax_rate

FD1

PK

FD2

CK
FD3
FD4

Prop# transitively determines tax_rate

through state
Prop# transitively determines price
through area
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

3 NF

A relation that is in 1NF & 2 NF &

no non-PK attribute is transitively
dependent on the PK, is said to be
in 3 NF
2 NF

Remove all

3 NF

Transitive Dependencies

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

BCNF

Based on FDs that take into account all

candidate keys of a relation
For a relation with only 1 CK, 3NF &
BCNF are equivalent
A relation is said to be in BCNF if every
determinant is a CK
Is PLOTS in BCNF?
NO
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Problem 1

Consider the relation

R(A,B,C) with functional
dependencies ABC and
CB.
Is R in 2NF?
Is R in 3NF?
Is R in BCNF?
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Problem 2

For the relation R (A,B,C,D), the

Functional Dependencies are
A B, A C, A D, & B A.

Find the candidate keys of R

List transitive dependencies in R
(assume any CK as PK)
Find the highest current normal
form of R
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Closure of a set of FDs

Given a set of FDs F on a relation R, it may

be possible that several other FDs must
also hold for R
For Example, R=(A,B,C) & FDs, AB & BC
hold in R, then FD AC also holds on R
For a given value of A, there can be only
one corresponding value of B, & for that
value of B, there can be only one
corresponding value for C
The closure of F is the set of all FDs that
can be inferred from F, & is denoted by F+
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Equivalent Set of FDs

Two sets of FDs, S & T, are equivalent

if the set of relation instances
satisfying S is exactly the same as
the set of relation instances
satisfying T
S follows from T if every relation
instance that satisfies T also satisfies
all FDs in S
S & T are equivalent iff S follows
from T, & T follows from S
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Trivial, Non-trivial &

Completely Non-trivial FDs
AB
Trivial
If Bs are a subset of the As
Non-trivial
If atleast one of the Bs is not among
As
Completely Non-trivial
If none of the Bs is also one of the
As
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Trivial Dependency Rule

The FD A1A2A3AnB1B2B3
Bm is equivalent to
A1A2A3AnC1C2C3Ck
where the Cs are all those Bs
that are not As

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Closure of a set of FDs

It is not suff. to consider just the given set of

FDs
We need to consider all FDs that hold
Given F, more FDs can be inferred
Such FDs are said to be logically implied by F
F+ is the set of all FDs logically implied by F
We can compute F+using formal defn. of FD
If F were large, this process would be
lengthy & cumbersome
Axioms or Rules of Inference provide simpler
technique
Armstrong;s Axioms
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Inference Rules for FDs

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
IR1, IR2, IR3 form a sound & complete set
of inference rules
Never generates Generate all FDs
any wrong FD
that hold

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Inference Rules for FDs

Some additional inference rules that are
useful:
IR4: Decomposition: If XYZ, then XY & XZ
IR5: Union: If XY & XZ, then XYZ
IR6: Psuedotransitivity: If XY & WYZ,then WXZ

Above three inference rules, as well as any

other inference rules, can be deduced from IR1,
IR2, and IR3 (completeness property)
Prove all the six rules (IR1 IR6) Use defn. of
FD & either by direct proof or proof by
contradiction
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Inference Rules for FDs

IR1. (Reflexive) If Y X, then X Y
Proof: Y X & t1 & t2 some instance r of R
t1[X]=t2[X], then t1[Y]=t2[Y] because Y X.
IR2. (Augmentation) If X Y, then XZ YZ
Proof by contradiction: Assume XY holds but
XZYZ does not. Then there must exist 2 tuples
t1 & t2 1. t1[X]=t2[X], 2. t1[Y]=t2[Y]
3. t1[XZ]=t2[XZ] & 4. t1[YZ]t2[YZ]
Not possible because from 1 & 3 we deduce
5. t1[Z]=t2[Z], & from 2 & 5 we deuce
6. t1[YZ]=t2[YZ], contradicting 4

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Example

R = (A, B, C, G, H, I)
F={ AB
AC
CG H
CG I
B H}
some members of F+

AH
by transitivity from A B and B H

AG I
by augmenting A C with G, to get AG CG
and then transitivity with CG I

CG HI
By union rule
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Procedure for Computing F+

To compute the closure of a set of functional dependencies F:

F+=F
repeat
for each functional dependency f in F+
apply reflexivity and augmentation rules on f
add the resulting functional dependencies to F +
for each pair of functional dependencies f1and f2 in F
if f1 and f2 can be combined using transitivity
then add the resulting functional dependency to F +
until F + does not change any further

NOTE: We shall see an alternative procedure for this task later

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Closure of Attribute Sets

Set of attributes functionally determined by X

Closure of a set of attributes X with respect to F
is the set X+ of all attributes that are functionally
determined by X
Algo. for computing closure: compute F+ & take
all FDs with X on the LHS & take union of the
RHS of all such FDs
X+ can be calculated by repeatedly applying IR1,
IR2, IR3 using the FDs in F
Both these approaches become cumbersome if F
is large & consequently F+ is larger
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Closure of Attribute Sets

Given a set of attributes define the closure of under F

(denoted by +) as the set of attributes that are
functionally determined by under F
Algorithm to compute +, the closure of under F

result := ;
while (changes to result) do
for each in F do
begin
if result then result := result
end
Try to find out why this algorithm works!
Complexity of this algorithm
Can you do any better?
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Example of Attribute Set

Closure

R = (A, B, C, G, H, I)
F = {A B, A C, CG H, CG I, B H}
(AG)+
1. result
2. result
3. result
4. result

=
=
=
=

AG
ABCG (A C and A B)
ABCGH (CG H and CG AGBC)
ABCGHI (CG I and CG AGBCH)

Is AG a candidate key?
1.

Is AG a super key?
1. Does AG R? == Is (AG)+ R

2.

Is any subset of AG a superkey?

1. Does A R? == Is (A)+ R
2. Does G R? == Is (G)+ R
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Uses of Attribute Closure

There are several uses of the attribute closure
algorithm:
Testing for superkey:

Testing functional dependencies

To test if is a superkey, we compute +, and check if +

contains all attributes of R.
To check if a functional dependency holds (or, in
other words, is in F+), just check if +.
That is, we compute + by using attribute closure, and
then check if it contains .
Is a simple and cheap test, and very useful

Computing closure of F

For each R, we find the closure +, and for each S +,

we output a functional dependency S.
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Canonical Cover

Sets of functional dependencies may have

redundant dependencies that can be inferred from
the others

For example: A C is redundant in: {A B, B C}

Parts of a functional dependency may be redundant
E.g.: on RHS:
to
E.g.: on LHS:
to

{A B,

B C,

A CD} can be simplified

{A B, B C, A D}
{A B, B C, AC D} can be simplified
{A B,

B C,

A D}

Intuitively, a canonical cover of F is a minimal set

of functional dependencies equivalent to F, having
no redundant dependencies or redundant parts of
dependencies
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Equivalence of Sets of FDs

Two sets of FDs F and G are equivalent if:

- every FD in F can be inferred from G, &
- every FD in G can be inferred from F

Hence, F and G are equivalent if F+=G+

Definition: F covers G if every FD in G can be
inferred from F (i.e., 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

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Extraneous Attributes

Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the

functional dependency in F.

Note: implication in the opposite direction is trivial in

each of the cases above, since a stronger functional
dependency always implies a weaker one
Example: Given F = {A C, AB C }

Attribute A is extraneous in if A
and F logically implies (F { }) {( A) }.
Attribute A is extraneous in if A
and the set of functional dependencies
(F { }) { ( A)} logically implies F.

B is extraneous in AB C because {A C, AB C}
logically implies A C (I.e. the result of dropping B from
AB C).

Example: Given F = {A C, AB CD}

C is extraneous in AB CD since AB C can be inferred

even after deleting C
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Testing if an Attribute is
Extraneous

Consider a set F of functional dependencies

and the functional dependency in F.
To test if attribute A is extraneous in
1.
2.

compute ({} A)+ using the dependencies in F

check that ({} A)+ contains A; if it does, A is
extraneous

To test if attribute A is extraneous in

1.

2.

compute + using only the dependencies in

F = (F { }) { ( A)},
check that + contains A; if it does, A is
extraneous
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Canonical Cover

A canonical cover for F is a set of dependencies Fc such that

F logically implies all dependencies in Fc, and
Fc logically implies all dependencies in F, and
No functional dependency in Fc contains an extraneous
attribute, and
Each left side of functional dependency in Fc is unique.
To compute a canonical cover for F:
repeat
Use the union rule to replace any dependencies in F
1 1 and 1 2 with 1 1 2
Find a functional dependency with an
extraneous attribute either in or in
If an extraneous attribute is found, delete it from

until F does not change

Note: Union rule may become applicable after some
extraneous attributes have been deleted, so it has to be reapplied
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Computing Canonical Cover

R = (A, B, C)
F = {A BC, B C, A B, AB C}
Combine A BC and A B into A BC

Set is now {A BC, B C, AB C}

A is extraneous in AB C

Check if the result of deleting A from AB C is implied

by the other dependencies
Yes: in fact, B C is already present!

Set is now {A BC, B C}

C is extraneous in A BC

Check if A C is logically implied by A B and the

other dependencies
Yes: using transitivity on A B and B C.
Can use attribute closure of A in more complex cases

The canonical cover is:

A B, B C

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Problems with
Decompositions
There are three potential problems to
consider:
Some queries become more expensive
e.g., What is the price of prop# 1?

Given instances of the decomposed relations, we

may not be able to reconstruct the corresponding

instance of the original relation!
Fortunately, not in the PLOTS example
How we could say this?

Checking some dependencies may require joining

the instances of the decomposed relations.
Fortunately, not in the PLOTS example
How we could say this?

Tradeoff:

Must consider these issues vs. redundancy

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Lossy Decomposition

Spurious
Tuples

A
1
4
7
A
1
4
7
1
7

B
2
5
2
B
2
5
2
2
2

C
3
6
8
C
3
6
8
8
3

A
1
4
7

B
2
5
2

B
2
5
2

C
3
6
8

JOIN

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Note that we
can never
get anythng
less than the
original
relation

Since we
dont know
which tuples
are spurious
and which
are genuine,
we have
indeed lost
information

Lossy Decomposition

S#

Status City

S3

30

Paris

S5

30

Athens

S#

Status

S#

City

S3

30

S3

Paris

S5

30

S5

Athens

S#

Status

Status

City

S3

30

30

Paris

S5

30

30

Athens

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Lossless Decomposition

Observe that S satisfies the FDs:

S# Status & S# City

It can not be a coincidence that S is equal to

the join of its projections on {S#, Status} &
{S#, City}
Heaths Theorem:
Let R{A,B,C} be a relation, where A, B, & C
are sets of attributes. If R satisfies AB &
AC, then R is equal to the join of its
projections on {A,B} & {A,C}
Observe that in 2 the FD, S# City is lost
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Lossless Decomposition

The decomposition of R into R1, R2, Rn is

lossless if for any instance r of R

r = R1 (r )

R2 (r )

Rn (r )

We can replace R by R1 & R2, knowing that

the instance of R can be recovered from the
instances of R1 & R2
We can use FDs to show that decompositions
are lossless

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Lossless Decomposition
Theorem
A decomposition of R into R1 and R2 is
lossless join wrt FDs F, if and only if at
least one of the following dependencies is
in F+:
R1 R2 R1
R1 R2 R2
In other words, R1 R2 forms a superkey
of either R1 or R2

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Dependency Preservation

Let Fi be the set of dependencies

in F + that include only attributes
in Ri.
A decomposition is dependency
preserving, if
(F1 F2 Fn )+ = F +
If it is not, then checking updates for
violation of functional dependencies may
require computing joins, which is
expensive.
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Testing for Dependency

Preservation

To check if a dependency is preserved in a decomposition of

R into R1, R2, , Rn we apply the following test (with attribute
closure done with respect to F)

result =
while (changes to result) do
for each Ri in the decomposition
t = (result Ri)+ Ri
result = result t

If result contains all attributes in , then the functional dependency

is preserved.

We apply the test on all dependencies in F to check if a

decomposition is dependency preserving
This procedure takes polynomial time, instead of the exponential
time required to compute F+ and (F1 F2 Fn)+
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Example

R = (A, B, C )
F = {A B, B C}
Key = {A}
R is not in BCNF
Decomposition R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)

R1 and R2 in BCNF

Lossless-join decomposition
Dependency preserving

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF

BCNF removes any anomalies due to FDs

Further research has led to the
identification of another type of
dependency called Multi-valued
Dependency (MVD)
Proposed by R Fagin* in 1977
MVDs can also cause data redundancy
MVDs are a generalization of FDs
* R Fagin: Multi-valued Dependencies & a new normal form for
relational databases, ACM TODS2, No. 3 (Sept. 1977)
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF

Consider the following relation HCTX:

In relational databases, repeating groups are not allowed

Course

Teacher

Texts

DBS

N Goyal
J P Misra

Garcia
Raghu

ADBS

J P Misra

Connolly
Garcia

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF

1 NF Version

CTX

COURSE

TEACHER

TEXTS

DBS

N GOYAL

GARCIA

DBS

N GOYAL

RAGHU R

DBS

J P MISRA

GARCIA

DBS

J P MISRA

RAGHU R

ADBS

J P MISRA

GARCIA

ADBS

J P MISRA

CONNOLLY

NO FDs in this relation

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF

Highest Normal Form?

CTX

BCNF?

COURSE

TEACHER

TEXTS

DBS

N GOYAL

GARCIA

DBS

N GOYAL

RAGHU R

DBS

J P MISRA

GARCIA

DBS

J P MISRA

RAGHU R

ADBS

J P MISRA

GARCIA

ADBS

J P MISRA

CONNOLLY

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF

Anomalies?

CTX

MANY!!

COURSE

TEACHER

TEXTS

DBS

N GOYAL

GARCIA

DBS

N GOYAL

RAGHU R

DBS

J P MISRA

GARCIA

DBS

J P MISRA

RAGHU R

ADBS

J P MISRA

GARCIA

ADBS

J P MISRA

CONNOLLY

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF
Anomalies
New Teacher for DBS
New Text for ADBS
Teacher teaching DBS leaves

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF
Points to note:

If (c,t1,x1), (c,t2,x2) both appear, then

(c,t1,x2), (c,t2,x1) will also appear.
Teachers and texts are completely independent of
one another
CTX has no FDs at all
CTX is in BCNF
Any all key relation must necessarily be in BCNF!!
But still there is a need to normalize CTX

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF
Decompose

& TX

CTX into CT
TX

CT
COURSE

TEACHER

DBS

N GOYAL

DBS

J P MISRA

ADBS

J P MISRA

COURSE

TEXT

DBS

GARCIA

DBS

RAGHU R

ADBS

GARCIA

ADBS

CONNOLLY

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF

Decompose CTX into CT & TX is not done

on the basis of FDs (as there are no FDs)
Decompose CTX into CT & TX is done on
the basis of MVDs
MVDs
Represents a dependency between attributes of a
relation, such that for every value of A, there is a
set of values of B & a set of values of C, The set of
values for B & C are independent of each other

course

teacher

course

text

(course multi-determines teacher)

(text multi-dependent on course)

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF

Interpretation of course

teacher

Although a course does not have a single

corresponding teacher, i.e. the FD course
teacher does not hold
Still each course must have a well defined set
of teachers
For a given course c and a given text x, the set
of teachers t matching the pair (c,x) depends
on value of c alone
It makes no difference which particular value
of x we choose
Interpret course text analogously

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF
Formal Definition
Let R be a relation and A,B,C be subsets of attributes
of R, then we say that
A B
iff, in every possible legal value of R, the set of B
values matching a given (A,C) pair depends only on
the value of A and is independent of the C value.
It can be easily shown that for R(A,B,C), the MVD A
B hold iff the MVD A C also holds.
MVDs always go together in pairs and we write them
as
A B | C
course teacher | text
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF
Fagin Theorem

Let R(A,B,C) be a relation where A,B,C and

be subsets of attributes of R, then R is equal
to the join of its projections on {A,B} and
{A,C} iff R satisfies the MVD
A B | C

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

4 NF

An MVDs A B is trivial if
(a) B A or
(b) A U B = R
A relation that is in BCNF & contains no
non-trivial MVDs is said to be in 4NF
CTX is not in 4NF because course
is a non trivial MVD

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

teacher

Multi-Valued Dependencies

Most common source of redundancy

in BCNF schemas is to put 2 or more
M:M relationships in a single relation

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Formal Definition of MVD

The MVD
A1A2.An B1B2Bm
holds for a relation R if
for each pair of tuples t & u that
agree on As, we can find a tuple v
that agrees
1.
2.
3.

With t & u on As
With t on Bs
With u on all attributes of R that are
not among As & Bs
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

MVD
A B

As

Bs

Others

t
v
u

Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Problem Solving

Consider a relation R (A,B,C,D,E,F)

with the following FDs:
F = {AB C, BC AD, D E, CF B}
(a) Find out whether AB is a key of R or not.
(b) Use the result of part (a) to find out
whether AB D is implied by F
AB+={ABCDE}
If D is in AB+, then ABD is implied by F
Prof. Navneet Goyal, BITS, Pilani

Q&A

Thank You