CS 222

Database Management System

Spring 2010-11

Lecture 4
Database Design Theory
Korra Sathya Babu
Department of Computer Science
NIT Rourkela
1

Unit Overview

Database Design Problem

Functional Dependency

Axioms, Logical Implications of FDs, Redundant FDs, Closure, Equivalence

of FDS, extraneous attributes, covers

Decomposition

Redundancy and Anomaly

Rules of Decomposition, Test for Lossless Join and Dependency

Preservation

Normalization

Normal Forms, Multivalued Dependency, Join Dependency,

Denormalization

Modeling

year

title

Movies

name

Stars-In

address

Stars

name
length

filmType

Owns

Studios

address

Relational Database Design

Automatic mappings from E/R to relations may not produce the

best relational design possible

Suggested Design Strategy

Real-world to E/R model to Relational schema to Better relational schema

to Relational DBMS

Database designers sometimes go directly from Real-world to

Relational schema, in which case the relational design could be
really bad.

Many problems may arise if the design is not careful

Problems using bad design

Redundancy
Insertion Anomaly
Updation Anomaly
Deletion Anomaly

Functional Dependency

Definition

A functional dependency (FD) has the form XY, where X

and Y are sets of attributes in a relation R. Formally, XY
means that whenever two tuples in R agree on all the
attributes of X, they must also agree on all the attributes
of Y.
Movies (title, year, length, filmtype,studioName, starName)
FDs we can reasonable assert are: Title, year length ; Title,
year filmType; Title, year studioName

Trivial Dependency

Trivial: A fd A1A2An B is said to be trivial if B is one of

the As. ex. title year title
Nontrivial: atleast one of the Bs not among As. ex. title
year year length
Completely nontrivial: none of the Bs are part of As. ex.
title year length
7

Trivial Dependency

An FD A1 A2 . . .An -> B1 B2 . . .Bm is trivial if the Bs are a

subset of the As {B1,B2, . . . Bn} subset {A1,A2, . . . An}
Its non-trivial if at least one B is not among the As, i.e.,
{B1,B2, ... Bn} {A1,A2, ...An}
Its completely non-trivial if none of the Bs are among the As,
{B1,B2, ... Bn} Intersect {A1,A2, ...An} =
Trivial dependency rule: The FD A1 A2 . . .An B1 B2 . . .Bm
is equivalent to the FD A1 A2. . .An C1 C2 . . . Ck , where
the Cs are those Bs that are not As, i.e., {C1, C2, . ., Ck} =
{B1,B2, . ,Bm} {A1,A2,.. ,An}

Armstrong Axioms

Reflexivity

(If X Y, then XZ YZ for any Z)

Transitivity

Y, then X Y)

Augumentation

(If X

(If X Y and Y Z, then X Z)

Armstrong axioms are sound and complete

Sound
They generate only FDs in F+ when applied to a set of FDs

Complete
They when repeatedly applied, these rules will generate all
FDs in F+
9

More Inference Axioms

Finding the closure of an FD Set may be tedious. So

more rules may be derived from Armstrong Axioms

The Union Rule, Pseudotransitive Rule and

Decompostion Rule are Sound but not complete

Union Rule (If X Y and X Z, then X YZ)

Given xy, xz
Augument x to xy and y to xz

xx xy ; xy yz

x xy ; xy yz

x yz [using transitive Axiom; x

xy, xy

yz]

10

More Inference Axioms

Pseudotransitive Rule (If X

Y and YW Z, then XW Z)

Given xy, ywz

Augument w to xy

xw yw

xw z [using transitive Axiom; xw

Decomposition Rule (If X

yw, yw

z]

YZ then X Y and then X Z)

Lets prove from the back onwards

Assume xy and xz is given
Take x y and augument with x

xx yx
We already have xz, So replace x with z in determinee

xx yx

xyz
11

Logical Implications of FDs

Let F be the following set of functional dependencies:

{ABCD, BDE, CF, EG, AB}. Use Armstrongs axioms
to show that {AFG} is logically implied by F

12

The Satisfies Algorithm

Used to determine if a relation R satisfies or doesnt satisfy a

given FD: AB
Input: Relation R and an FD: A B
Output: TRUE if R satisfies A B, otherwise FALSE

The Satisfies Algorithm:

Step 1: Sort the tuples of the relation R on the attribute(s) A (determinant)
so that tuples with equal values under A are next to each other
Step 2: Check that tuples with equal values under A also have equal values
under attribute(s) B
Step 3: If any two tuples of R meet condition 1 but fail to meet condition 2
the output of the algorithm is FALSE. Otherwise, the relation satisfies the
Functional Dependency and the output of the algorithm is TRUE
In short the satisfies algorithm can be stated as: The relation R satisfies
the FD: AB if the following holds for every pair of tuples t1 and t2
in R, if t1.A = t2.A then t1.B = t2.B
13

Redundant FDs

Given a set F of FDs, a FD AB of F is said to be redundant

w.r.t the FDs of F if and only if AB can be derived from the
set of FDs F-{AB}

Eliminating Redundant FDs allows us to minimize the set of FDs

Membership Algorithm helps to determine the Redundant FDs.

Input : A set F of FDs and a particular FD of F that is being tested

Output: FD is Redundant or not

14

Redundant FDs

Assume F is a set of FDs with AB F

The Membership Algorithm:

Step 1: Remove temporarily AB from F and initialize the set of FDs G to F. ie. Set
G=F-{AB}. If G proceed to step 2; otherwise stop executing the algorithm
since AB is non redundant
Step 2: Initialize the set of attributes Ti (with i=1) with the set of attribute(s) A(the
determinant of the FD under consideration). ie. Set Ti = T1 = {A}. The set T1 is the
current Ti
Step 3: In the set G search for FDs XY such that all the attributes of the
determinant X are elements of the current set Ti. There are two possible outcomes
Step 3a: If such FD is found, add the attribute of Y (right hand side of FD) to set Ti
and form a new Set Ti + 1= Ti U Y. The Set Ti + 1 is the current Ti .
Check if all the attributes of B (the right hand side of FD under consideration) are
members of Ti + 1. If this is the case, stop executing algorithm becos the FD:AB is
redundant. If not all attributes of B are members of Ti + 1 , remove XY from G
and repeat step 3
Step 3a: If G= or there are no FDs in G that have all the attributes of its
determinant in the current Ti then AB is not redundant
15

Redundant FDs

Given the set F={x YW, XW Z, Z Y, XY Z}. Determine

if the FD XY Z is redundant in F

Eliminate redundant FDs from F={X Y, Y X, Y Z, Z

Y, X Z, Z X} using the Membership algorithm

Find the redundant FDs in the set F={X YZ, ZW P, P

Z, W XPQ, XYQ YW, WQ YZ}

16

Closure of FD Set

Definition

The set of all FDs implied by a given set F of FDs is called the closure of F,
and denoted as F+
Armstrong Axioms can be applied repeatedly to infer all FDs implied by a
set F of FDs

Given R = ABCD and F = {A B,

+
A C, CD A}. Compute F .
+

A F={ABC}
+
B F={B}

+
AB F={ABC}
+
AC F={ABC}

+
ABC F=

Given R = XYZ and F = {XY Z}.

+
Compute F .
+

F = {X X, Y Y, Z Z,
XY X, XY Y, XY XY, XY Z
XZ X, XZ Z, XZ XZ,
YZ Y, YZ Z, YZ YY,
XYZ X, XYZ Y, XYZ Z,
XYZ XY, XYZ XZ, XYZ YZ,
XYZ XYZ,}

Consider a relation with schema R(A,B,C,D) and FD's F={AB C, C D, D A}

+
Compute F
17

Attribute Closure

Finding all the attributes in the relation that the

current attribute can determine by using inference
axioms and given FD set. Its denoted by {A}+

Given FDs set F={X YZ, ZW P, P Z, W XPQ, XYQ YW,

WQ YZ}. Find the Closure of all the single attributes

18

Candidate Key

A unique minimal set of attribute(s) that determine

the set of other attributes in a relation
Two properties of key are unique and minimalism
A superkey is a set of attributes that has the
uniqueness property but is not necessarily minimal
If a relation has multiple keys, specify one to be the
primary key
Convention: in a relational schema, underline the
attributes of the primary key.
If a key has only one attribute A, we say
that A rather than {A} is a key.

19

Candidate Key

Given a relation R(ABC) and FDs set F={AB C, B D,

D B}. Find the candidate keys of the relation

Given a relation R(XYZWP) and FDs set F={Y Z, Z

Y, Z W, Y P}. Find the number of candidate keys

Consider a schema R={S,T,V,C,P,D} and F= {S T,

V SC, SD P}. Find keys for R

Given a relation R(XYZWP) and FDs set F={x Z, YZ

W, Z Y}. Find the number of candidate keys

20

Equivalence of set of FDs

Given two sets F and G of FDs defined over same

relational schema
A set of FDs S follows from a set of FDs T if every
relation instance that satisfies all the FDs in T also
satisfies all the FDs in S
A C follows from T = {A B, B C}.
Two sets of FDs S and T are equivalent if and only
if S follows from T, and T follows from S
S = {A B,B C,AC} and T={A B, B C} are
equivalent
These notions are useful in deriving new FDs from a
given set of FDs
21

Equivalence of set of FDs

Two sets of FDs F and G defined over same relation

schema are equivalent if

every FD in F can be inferred from G and

every FD in G can be inferred from F

F Covers G if every FD in G can be inferred from F

(ie if G+ is subset of F+)
F and G are equivalent if F covers G and G covers F
If G covers F and no proper subset H of G exist such
that H+ = G+ we say G is a non-redundant cover of
F

22

The non-redundant cover algorithm

The Non-Redundant Cover Algorithm:
Step 1: Initialize G to F. i.e. set G=F
Step 2: Test every FD of G for redundancy using the Membership
Algorithm until there are no more FDs of G to be tested
Step 3: The set G is a non-redundant cover of F
Note:
Given a set F, there may be more than one non-redundant cover since the
order in which the FDs are considered is irrelevant

Problem
Find the non-redundant cover G for the set
F={X YZ, ZW P, P Z, W XPQ, XYQ YW, WQ YZ}

23

Extraneous Attribute

Definition: A is extraneous in X Y if A can be removed from

the left side or right side of X Y without changing the
closure of F.
ex. Let G = {A B C, B C, A B D }
Attribute C is extraneous in the right side of A B C and
attribute B is extraneous in the left side of A B D

The set G = {A B C, B C, A B D } is neither leftreduced nor right-reduced. G1 = {A B C, B C, A D } is

left-reduced but not right-reduced, while G2 = (A B. B C,
A B D} is right-reduced but not left-reduced. The set G3 =
{A B, B C, A D} is left and right-reduced, hence
reduced

One need to eliminate the extraneous attribute

24

Left Reduced Algorithm

The Left-Reduced Algorithm:
Step 1: Initialize a set of FDs to F. i.e. set G=F
Step 2: For every A1,A2,,Ai,,An Y in G do step 3 until there are no
more FDS in G to which this step can be applied. The algorithm stops when
all FDs of G have executed step 3
Step 3: For each attribute A in the determinant of FD selected in the
i
previous step do step 4 until all attributes have been tested. After finishing
testing of all attributes of a particular FD repeat step 2
Step 4: Test if all attributes of Y (the RHS of the FD under consideration)
are elements of the closure of A1,A2,,An (notice that we have removed
attribute A from the determinant of the FD) with respect to the FDs of G. If
i
this is the case remove attribute Ai from the determinant of the FD
undergoing testing becos Ai is an extraneous left attribute. If not all
attributes of Y are elements of the closure of A1,A2,,An then attribute Ai is
not an extraneous left attribute and should remain in the determinant of
the FD under consideration

When the algorithm finishes the set G contains a left-reduced cover set of T
25

Extraneous Attribute

Remove any extraneous left attributes from

F={ABC, EC, DAEF, ABFBD}
Reduce the set F={XZ, XYWP, XYZWQ, XZR}
by removing extraneous left attribute
Reduce the set F={XWY, XWZ, ZY, XYZ} by
removing extraneous left attribute

Tip :

There is no need to consider FDs with determinant that consist of single

attribute

26

Canonical Cover

A set of FDs F is canonical if every FD in F is of the

form X A and F is left-reduced and nonredundant
Since a canonical set of FDs is non-redundant and
every FD has a single attribute on the right side, it
is right-reduced. Since it is also left-reduced, it is
reduced
Example:
The set F = {A B, A C, A D, A E, B I J} is a
canonical cover for G = {A B C E, A B D E, B I J}

27

Minimal Cover

A set of FDs is minimal if it satisfies the following

conditions

every dependency in F has a single attribute for its RHS

we cannot remove any dependency from F and have a set of
dependencies that is equivalent to F
we cannot replace any dependency XA in F with a dependency
YA, where Y proper-subset-of X (Y subset-of X) and still have a
set of dependencies that is equivalent to F

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 minimal set
28

Optimal Cover

We have been measuring our covers in terms of the

number of FDs they contain. We can also measure
them by the number of attribute symbols required
to express them. example. (A B C, CD E, A C
IJ> has size 10 under this measure
Defiition: A set of FDs F is optimal if there is no
equivalent set of FDs with fewer attribute symbols
than F
The set F = {EC D, AB E, E AB ) is an
optimal cover for G=(ABCD,AB E, E AB }.
Notice that G is reduced and minimum, but not
optimal.

29

Problems

Find canonical cover of

1.
2.
3.
4.

F={XZ, XYWP, XYZWQ, XZR}

F={XYW, XWZ, ZY, XYZ}
F={ABC, EC, DAEF, ABFBD}
G = {A C, A B C, C DI, CD I, EC AB, EICC}

Find minimal cover of the following FD sets

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

F={ABC, ABC, BC, AB}

F={AB, BA, BC, AC, CA}
F={ABC, AB, BA}
G = {ABCD E, E D, A B, AC D}
F={ABC, BAC, C AB}
G={ABDC, CBE, AD BF, BF}

30

Seminar change?

Compound Functional Dependency (CFD) and

Annular Covers

31

Summary

Good Design needs strategy

Armstrong Axioms are sound and complete
FDs are constraints
There may be a number of equivalent FD sets
FD sets may be minimized by checking the coverage

32