Basics of Functional

Dependencies and
Normalization
for Relational DBs
CHAPTER – 14 ( E L M ASR I , R . , & N AVATHE , S . ( 2 0 1 7) . F U N DA M ENTAL S O F
DATA BA SE SYST E MS. 7 T H E DI TI ON. P EA RSON E DUCAT I ON)

March 2020
Outline
•Overview
•Insertion, deletion, and update anomalies
•Informal normalization guidelines
•Functional dependencies and prime attribute type
•Normalization forms

March 2020
Overview
You have setup the tables of a database (i.e, the schema).
How can you tell if it is a good design?
Is there a measure of goodness for the quality of the design?
• To have a good relational data model, all relations in the model should be normalized
• Normalization of a relational model is a step-by-step process of analyzing the given
relations to ensure that they do not contain any redundant data
• The goal of normalization is to ensure that no anomalies can occur during data
insertion, deletion, or update
• A formal normalization procedure can be applied to transform an unnormalized
relational model into a normalized form

3
Overview
The advantages are two fold:
◦ At the logical level :- the users can easily understand the meaning of the data
and formulate correct queries
◦ At the implementation level :- the storage space is used efficiently and the risk
of inconsistent updates is reduced
The goals of the design activity are:
◦ Information Preservation
◦ Minimum Redundancy

March 2020
Chapter Objective
1 Informal Design Guidelines for Relational Databases
◦ 1.1Semantics of the Relation Attributes
◦ 1.2 Redundant Information in Tuples and Update Anomalies
◦ 1.3 Null Values in Tuples
◦ 1.4 Spurious Tuples

2 Functional Dependencies (FDs)

◦ 2.1 Definition of FD
◦ 2.2 Inference Rules for FDs
◦ 2.3 Equivalence of Sets of FDs
◦ 2.4 Minimal Sets of FDs

March 2020
Chapter Objective
3 Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys
◦ 3.1 Normalization of Relations
◦ 3.2 Practical Use of Normal Forms
◦ 3.3 Definitions of Keys and Attributes Participating in Keys
◦ 3.4 First Normal Form
◦ 3.5 Second Normal Form
◦ 3.6 Third Normal Form

March 2020
1 Informal Design Guidelines for Relational Databases (1)
• What is relational database design?
• The grouping of attributes to form "good" relation schemas

• Two levels of relation schemas

• The logical "user view" level
• The implementation or storage "base relation" level

• Design is concerned mainly with base relations

• What are the criteria for "good" base relations?

We first discuss four informal guidelines for good relational design

1.1 Semantics of the Relation Attributes
Well-defined and Unambiguous Interpretation
GUIDELINE 1: Informally, each tuple in a relation should represent one entity or
relationship instance. (Applies to individual relations and their attributes).
◦ Attributes of different entities (EMPLOYEEs, DEPARTMENTs, PROJECTs) should not be
mixed in the same relation
◦ Only foreign keys should be used to refer to other entities
◦ Entity and relationship attributes should be kept apart as much as possible.
Bottom Line: Design a schema that can be explained easily relation by relation.
The semantics of attributes should be easy to interpret.
Figure 14.1
A simplified COMPANY relational database schema
 Another Example
Design a relational model in such a way that it is easy to explain its meaning

MYRELATION123(SUPNR, SUPNAME, SUPTWITTER, PRODNR, PRODNAME, …)

versus

SUPPLIER(SUPNR, SUPNAME, SUPTWITTER, PRODNR, PRODNAME, ……)

March 2020
1.2 Redundant Information in Tuples and Update Anomalies
Information is stored redundantly
◦ Wastes storage
◦ Causes problems with update anomalies
◦ Insertion anomalies
◦ Deletion anomalies
◦ Modification anomalies
◦ Attribute types from multiple entity types should not be combined in a single relation
EXAMPLE OF AN UPDATE ANOMALY
Consider the relation:
◦ EMP_PROJ(Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname, No_hours)

Update 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.
EXAMPLE OF AN INSERT ANOMALY
Consider the relation:
◦ EMP_PROJ(Emp#, Proj#, Ename, Pname, No_hours)

Insert Anomaly:
◦ Cannot insert a project unless an employee is assigned to it.

Conversely
◦ Cannot insert an employee unless an he/she is assigned to a project.
EXAMPLE OF AN DELETE ANOMALY
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.
Figure 14.3
Two relation schemas suffering from update anomalies
Figure 14.4 Example States for EMP_DEPT and EMP_PROJ
Guideline to Redundant Information in Tuples and Update
Anomalies
GUIDELINE 2:
◦ Design a schema that does not suffer from the insertion, deletion and update
anomalies.
◦ If there are any anomalies present, then note them so that applications can
be made to take them into account.
1.3 Null Values in Tuples
GUIDELINE 3:
◦ Relations should be designed such that their tuples will have as few NULL values as possible
◦ Attributes that are NULL frequently could be placed in separate relations (with the primary
key)

SUPPLIER(SUPNR, SUPNAME, SUPTWITTER, …) versus SUPPLIER(SUPNR, SUPNAME, …)

SUPPLIER-TWITTER(SUPNR, SUPTWITTER)

Reasons for nulls:

◦ Attribute not applicable or invalid
◦ Attribute value unknown (may exist)
◦ Value known to exist, but unavailable
1.4 Spurious Tuples
Bad designs for a relational database may result in erroneous results for certain
JOIN operations
The "lossless join" property is used to guarantee meaningful results for join
operations

GUIDELINE 4:
◦ The relations should be designed to satisfy the lossless join condition.
◦ No spurious tuples should be generated by doing a natural-join of any relations.
Spurious Tuples (2)
There are two important properties of decompositions:
a) Non-additive or losslessness of the corresponding join
b) Preservation of the functional dependencies.

Note that:
◦ Property (a) is extremely important and cannot be sacrificed.
◦ Property (b) is less stringent and may be sacrificed. (See Chapter 11).
2.1 Functional Dependencies (1)
Functional dependencies (FDs)
◦ Are used to specify formal measures of the "goodness" of relational designs
◦ And keys are used to define normal forms for relations
◦ Are constraints that are derived from the meaning and interrelationships of the data attributes

A set of attributes X functionally determines a set of attributes Y if the value of X determines a

unique value for Y
Functional Dependencies (2)
X -> Y holds if whenever two tuples have the same value for X, they must have
the same value for Y
◦ For any two tuples t1 and t2 in any relation instance r(R): If t1[X]=t2[X], then
t1[Y]=t2[Y]
X -> Y in R specifies a constraint on all relation instances r(R)
Written as X -> Y; can be displayed graphically on a relation schema as in Figures.
( denoted by the arrow: ).
FDs are derived from the real-world constraints on the attributes
Examples of FD constraints (1)
Social security number determines employee name
◦ SSN -> ENAME

Project number determines project name and location

◦ PNUMBER -> {PNAME, PLOCATION}

Employee ssn and project number determines the hours per week that the employee works on
the project
◦ {SSN, PNUMBER} -> HOURS
March 2020
Examples of FD constraints (2)
An FD is a property of the attributes in the schema R
The constraint must hold on every relation instance r(R)
If K is a key of R, then K functionally determines all attributes in R
◦ (since we never have two distinct tuples with t1[K]=t2[K])
FD’s are a property of the meaning of data and hold at all times:
certain FD’s can be ruled out based on a given state of the database

March 2020
2.2 Inference Rules for FDs (1)
Given a set of FDs F, we can infer additional FDs that hold whenever the FDs in F
hold
Armstrong's inference rules:
◦ IR1. (Reflexive) If Y subset-of 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 and complete set of inference rules
◦ These are rules hold and all other rules that hold can be deduced from these
Inference Rules for FDs (2)
Some additional inference rules that are useful:
◦ Decomposition: If X -> YZ, then X -> Y and X -> Z
◦ Union: If X -> Y and X -> Z, then X -> YZ
◦ Psuedotransitivity: If X -> Y and WY -> Z, then WX -> Z

The last three inference rules, as well as any other inference rules, can be deduced from IR1, IR2,
and IR3 (completeness property)
Inference Rules for FDs (3)
Closure of a set F of FDs is the set F+ of all FDs that can be inferred from F

Closure of a set of attributes X with respect to F is the set X+ of all attributes that are functionally
determined by X

X+ can be calculated by repeatedly applying IR1, IR2, IR3 using the FDs in F
2.3 Equivalence of Sets of FDs
Two sets of FDs F and G are equivalent if:
◦ Every FD in F can be inferred from G, and
◦ Every FD in G can be inferred from F
◦ Hence, F and G are equivalent if F+ =G+
Definition (Covers):
◦ F covers G if every FD in G can be inferred from F
◦ (i.e., if G+ subset-of 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
2.4 Minimal Sets of FDs (1)
A set of FDs is minimal if it satisfies the following conditions:
1. Every dependency in F has a single attribute for its RHS.
2. We cannot remove any dependency from F and have a set of dependencies that is equivalent to F.
3. We cannot replace any dependency X -> A in F with a dependency Y -> A, where Y proper-subset-
of X ( Y subset-of X) and still have a set of dependencies that is equivalent to F.
Minimal Sets of FDs (2)
Every set of FDs has an equivalent minimal set
There can be several equivalent minimal sets
There is no simple algorithm for computing a minimal set of FDs that is equivalent to a set F of
FDs
To synthesize a set of relations, we assume that we start with a set of dependencies that is a
minimal set
◦ E.g., see algorithms 11.2 and 11.4
 Computing the Minimal Sets of FDs
We illustrate the above algorithm with the following:
Let the given set of FDs be E : {B → A, D → A, AB → D}.We have to find the minimum cover of E.
■ All above dependencies are in canonical form; so we have completed step 1 of Algorithm 10.2 and can proceed to
step 2. In step 2 we need to determine if AB → D has any redundant attribute on the left-hand side; that is, can it be
replaced by B → D or A → D?
■ Since B → A, by augmenting with B on both sides (IR2), we have BB → AB, or B → AB (i). However, AB → D as
given (ii).
■ Hence by the transitive rule (IR3), we get from (i) and (ii), B → D. Hence AB → D may be replaced by B → D.
■ We now have a set equivalent to original E , say E′ : {B → A, D → A, B → D}.
No further reduction is possible in step 2 since all FDs have a single attribute
on the left-hand side.
■ In step 3 we look for a redundant FD in E′. By using the transitive rule on B → D and D → A, we derive B → A. Hence
B → A is redundant in E’ and can be eliminated.
■ Hence the minimum cover of E is {B → D, D → A}.

March 2020
3 Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys
3.1 Normalization of Relations
3.2 Practical Use of Normal Forms
3.3 Definitions of Keys and Attributes Participating in Keys
3.4 First Normal Form
3.5 Second Normal Form
3.6 Third Normal Form
3.1 Normalization of Relations (1)
Normalization:
◦ The process of decomposing unsatisfactory "bad" relations by breaking up their attributes into smaller
relations

Normal form:
◦ Condition using keys and FDs of a relation to certify whether a relation schema is in a particular normal
form
Normalization of Relations (2)
2NF, 3NF, BCNF
◦ based on keys and FDs of a relation schema

4NF
◦ based on keys, multi-valued dependencies : MVDs; 5NF based on keys, join dependencies : JDs (Chapter
11)

Additional properties may be needed to ensure a good relational design (lossless join,
dependency preservation; Chapter 11)
3.2 Practical Use of Normal Forms
Normalization is carried out in practice so that the resulting designs are of high
quality and meet the desirable properties
The practical utility of these normal forms becomes questionable when the
constraints on which they are based are hard to understand or to detect
The database designers need not normalize to the highest possible normal form
◦ (usually up to 3NF, BCNF or 4NF)
Denormalization:
◦ The process of storing the join of higher normal form relations as a base relation—
which is in a lower normal form
3.3 Definitions of Keys and Attributes Participating in Keys
A superkey of a relation schema R = {A1, A2, ...., An} is a set of attributes S
subset-of R with the property that no two tuples t1 and t2 in any legal relation
state r of R will have t1[S] = t2[S]

A key K is a superkey with the additional property that removal of any attribute
from K will cause K not to be a superkey any more.
Definitions of Keys and Attributes Participating in Keys (2)
If a relation schema has more than one key, each is called a candidate key.
◦ One of the candidate keys is arbitrarily designated to be the primary key, and the others are
called secondary keys.
A Prime attribute must be a member (/part) of some candidate key
A Nonprime attribute is not a prime attribute—that is, it is not a member of any
candidate key.
Example: R1(SSN, PNUMBER, PNAME, HOURS)
◦ Prime attribute types: SSN and PNUMBER
◦ Non-prime attribute types: PNAME and HOURS
3.2 First Normal Form
Disallows
◦ composite attributes
◦ multivalued attributes
◦ nested relations; attributes whose values for an individual tuple are non-atomic

Considered to be part of the definition of relation

SUPPLIER(SUPNR, NAME(FIRST NAME, LAST NAME), SUPSTATUS)

versus
SUPPLIER(SUPNR, FIRST NAME, LAST NAME, SUPSTATUS)
Figure 14.8 Normalization into 1NF
Figure 14.9 Normalization nested relations into 1NF
3.3 Second Normal Form (1)
Uses the concepts of FDs, primary key
Definitions
◦ Prime attribute: An attribute that is member of the primary key K
◦ Full functional dependency: a FD Y -> Z where removal of any attribute from Y
means the FD does not hold any more
Examples:
◦ {SSN, PNUMBER} -> HOURS is a full FD since neither SSN -> HOURS nor PNUMBER ->
HOURS hold
◦ {SSN, PNUMBER} -> ENAME is not a full FD (it is called a partial dependency ) since
SSN -> ENAME also holds
Second Normal Form (2)
A relation R is in the second normal form (2 NF) if it satisfies 1 NF and every
non-prime attribute A in R is fully functionally dependent on the primary key of
R
◦ R can be decomposed into 2NF relations via the process of 2NF normalization

If the relation is not in second normal form, we must:

◦ Decompose it and set up a new relation for each partial key together with its
dependent attribute types
◦ Keep a relation with the original primary key and any attribute types that are
fully functional dependent on it
Second Normal Form (2 NF) - Example
R1(SSN, PNUMBER, PNAME, HOURS)
◦ Assume an employee can work on multiple projects; multiple employees can work on the same project;
and a project has a unique name

R1 to be decomposed into 2 relations:

R11(SSN, PNUMBER, HOURS)
R12(PNUMBER, PNAME)

45
Figure 14.10 Normalizing into 2NF and 3NF
Normalization into 2NF and 3NF
3.4 Third Normal Form (1)
Definition:
◦ Transitive functional dependency: a FD X -> Z that can be derived from two FDs X -> Y and Y
-> Z

A functional dependency X → Z in a relation R is a transitive dependency if

there is a set of attribute Y that is neither a candidate key nor a subset of any
key of R, and both X → Y and Y → Z hold
Examples:
◦ SSN -> DMGRSSN is a transitive FD
◦ Since SSN -> DNUMBER and DNUMBER -> DMGRSSN hold
◦ SSN -> ENAME is non-transitive
◦ Since there is no set of attributes X where SSN -> X and X -> ENAME
Third Normal Form (2)
A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if it is in 2NF and no non-prime
attribute A in R is transitively dependent on the primary key
R can be decomposed into 3NF relations via the process of 3NF normalization
◦ Decompose the relation R and set up a relation that includes the non-key
attribute types that functionally determine the other non-key attribute types
NOTE:
◦ In X -> Y and Y -> Z, with X as the primary key, we consider this a problem only if Y is not a
candidate key.
◦ When Y is a candidate key, there is no problem with the transitive dependency .
◦ E.g., Consider EMP (SSN, Emp#, Salary ).
◦ Here, SSN -> Emp# -> Salary and Emp# is a candidate key.
Third Normal Form (3 NF)
R1(SSN, ENAME, DNUMBER, DNAME, DMGRSSN)
◦ Assume an employee works in one department, a department can have multiple employees, and a
department has one manager

R11(SSN, ENAME, DNUMBER)

R12(DNUMBER, DNAME, DMGRSSN)

50
 EMP_DEPT is not in 3rd NF because
SSN → Dnumber → Dmgr_ssn

Relations with Update

Anamoly
Normal Forms Defined Informally
1st normal form
◦ All attributes depend on the key

2nd normal form

◦ All attributes depend on the whole key

3rd normal form

◦ All attributes depend on nothing but the key
SUMMARY OF NORMAL FORMS based
on Primary Keys

March 2020
Chapter Outline
Informal Design Guidelines for Relational Databases
Functional Dependencies (FDs)
◦ Definition, Inference Rules, Equivalence of Sets of FDs, Minimal Sets of FDs

Normal Forms Based on Primary Keys