Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B.

Navathe Slide 10- 1

Chapter 10
Functional Dependencies and
Normalization for Relational
Databases

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe

Chapter Outline

 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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 3

Chapter Outline
 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

 4 General Normal Form Definitions (For Multiple Keys)

 5 BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form)

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 4

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 storage "base relation" level
 Design is concerned mainly with base relations
 What are the criteria for "good" base relations?

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 5

Informal Design Guidelines for Relational
Databases (2)
 We first discuss informal guidelines for good relational
design
 Then we discuss formal concepts of functional
dependencies and normal forms
 - 1NF (First Normal Form)
 - 2NF (Second Normal Form)
 - 3NF (Third Normal Form)
 - BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form)
 Additional types of dependencies, further normal forms,
relational design algorithms by synthesis are discussed in
Chapter 11

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 6

1.1 Semantics of the Relation Attributes
 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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 7

Figure 10.1 A simplified COMPANY
relational database schema

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 8

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 9

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 10

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 11

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 12

Figure 10.3 Two relation schemas
suffering from update anomalies

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 13

Figure 10.4 Example States for
EMP_DEPT and EMP_PROJ

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 14

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 15

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)
 Reasons for nulls:
 Attribute not applicable or invalid
 Attribute value unknown (may exist)
 Value known to exist, but unavailable

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 16

1.4 Spurious Tuples

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 17

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 18
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:
 Design relation schemas so that they can be joined with equality conditions on
attributes that are appropriately related (primary key, foreign key) pairs in a way
that guarantees that no spurious tuples are generated.
 Avoid relations that contain matching attributes that are not (foreign key, primary
key) combinations because joining on such attributes may produce spurious
tuplesThe relations should be designed to satisfy the lossless join condition.
 No spurious tuples should be generated by doing a natural-join of any relations.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 19

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).

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 20

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 21

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 22

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 23

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])

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 24

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)

This can also be stated as: If X -> Y, then XZ -> Y
 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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 25

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)

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 26

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 27

Inference Rules for FDs
 If each department has one manager, so that
Dept_nouniquely determines Mgr_ssn
(Dept_no → Mgr_ssn)
and a manager has a unique phone number called
Mgr_phone
(Mgr_ssn → Mgr_phone)
then these two dependencies together imply that
Dept_no → Mgr_phone

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 28

X Closure
 X Closure: Set of attributes derivable by applying
Armstrong’s Inference Rules.
 F = {AD, D  B,B  C, E  B }
A+={A,D,B,C}
D+={D,B,C}
E+={E,B,C}
 FD1: {SSN -> ENAME
PNUMBER -> {PNAME, PLOCATION}
{SSN, PNUMBER} -> HOURS}
Find X Closure

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 29

X Closure (Contd…)
 {SSN}+={SSN, Ename}
 {Pnumber}+={Pnumber, Pname, Plocation}
 {SSN, Pumber}+={SSN, Pumber,Pname,
Plocation, Hours, Ename}

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 30

X Closure (Contd…)
 CLASS ( Classid, Course#, Instr_name,
Credit_hrs, Text, Publisher,Classroom, Capacity).
 Let F, the set of functional dependencies for the
above relation include the following f.d.s:
FD1: Classid → Course#, Instr_name, Credit
_hrs, Text, Publisher,Classroom, Capacity;
FD2: Course# → Credit_hrs;
FD3: {Course#, Instr_name} → Text, Classroom;
FD4: Text → Publisher
FD5: Classroom → Capacity
Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 31
X Closure (Contd…)
 { Classid } + = { Classid , Course#, Instr_name,
Credit_hrs, Text, Publisher,Classroom, Capacity }
= CLASS
 { Course#} + = { Course#, Credit_hrs}
 { Course#, Instr_name } + = { Course#,
Credit_hrs, Text, Publisher,Classroom, Capacity }

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 32

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 33

Equivalence of Sets of FDs
(Contd…)
F = {AB, B  C,C  A} and
G = {C  B, B  A, A  C}, determine whether the two sets F
and G are equivalent.
 Check whether G covers F: Take F closure w.r.t G

A+={A,C,B}
B+={B,A,C}
C+={C,B,A}
 Check whether F covers G: Take G closure w.r.t F

C+={C,A,B}
B+={B,C,A}
A+={A,B,C}

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 34

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 35

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 36

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 37

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 38

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)

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 39

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 40

3.3 Definitions of Keys and Attributes
Participating in Keys (1)
 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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 41

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 of some
candidate key
 A Nonprime attribute is not a prime attribute—
that is, it is not a member of any candidate key.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 42

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 43

Figure 10.8 Normalization into 1NF

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 44

Figure 10.9 Normalization nested
relations into 1NF

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 45

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 46

Second Normal Form (2)
 A relation schema R is in second normal form
(2NF) if every non-prime attribute A in R is fully
functionally dependent on the primary key

 R can be decomposed into 2NF relations via the

process of 2NF normalization

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 47

Normalizing into 2NF and 3NF

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 48

Figure 10.11 Normalization into 2NF and
3NF

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 49

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
 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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 50

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
 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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 51

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

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 52

4 General Normal Form Definitions (For
Multiple Keys) (1)
 The above definitions consider the primary key
only
 The following more general definitions take into
account relations with multiple candidate keys
 A relation schema R is in second normal form
(2NF) if every non-prime attribute A in R is fully
functionally dependent on every key of R

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 53

General Normal Form Definitions (2)
 Definition:
 Superkey of relation schema R - a set of attributes
S of R that contains a key of R
 A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF)
if whenever a FD X -> A holds in R, then either:

(a) X is a superkey of R, or

(b) A is a prime attribute of R
 NOTE: Boyce-Codd normal form disallows
condition (b) above

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 54

5 BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form)
 A relation schema R is in Boyce-Codd Normal Form
(BCNF) if whenever an FD X -> A holds in R, then X is a
superkey of R
 Each normal form is strictly stronger than the previous
one
 Every 2NF relation is in 1NF
 Every 3NF relation is in 2NF
 Every BCNF relation is in 3NF
 There exist relations that are in 3NF but not in BCNF
 The goal is to have each relation in BCNF (or 3NF)

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 55

Figure 10.12 Boyce-Codd normal form

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 56

Figure 10.13 a relation TEACH

fd1: { student, course} -> instructor

fd2: instructor -> course
{student, course} is a candidate key

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 57

Achieving the BCNF by Decomposition (1)
 Two FDs exist in the relation TEACH:
 fd1: { student, course} -> instructor
 fd2: instructor -> course
 {student, course} is a candidate key for this relation and
that the dependencies shown follow the pattern in Figure
10.12 (b).

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 58

  So this relation is in 3NF but not in BCNF
 A relation NOT in BCNF should be decomposed so as to
meet this property, while possibly forgoing the
preservation of all functional dependencies in the
decomposed relations.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 59

Achieving the BCNF by Decomposition
 Three possible decompositions for relation TEACH
 {student, instructor} and {student, course}

 {course, instructor } and {course, student}

 {instructor, course } and {instructor, student}

 All three decompositions will lose fd1.

 We have to settle for sacrificing the functional dependency

preservation. But we cannot sacrifice the non-additivity property

after decomposition.
 Out of the above three, only the 3rd decomposition will not generate
spurious tuples after join.(and hence has the non-additivity property).
 A test to determine whether a binary decomposition (decomposition
into two relations) is non-additive (lossless) is discussed in section
11.1.4 under Property LJ1. Verify that the third decomposition above
meets the property.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 60

Properties of Relational
Decompositions
 Dependency Preservation Property of a
Decomposition:
 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,

 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.
 Nonadditive (Lossless) Join Property of a
Decomposition:
 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:

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 61

Lossy or Lossless?

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 62

Lossless Join (Contd.)

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 63

Properties of Relational Decompositions
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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 11- 64

 Properties of Relational Decompositions

Lossless (nonadditive) join

test for n-ary
decompositions.
(c) Case 2: Decomposition
of EMP_PROJ into EMP,
PROJECT, and
WORKS_ON satisfies test.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 11- 65

 Multivalued dependency & Fourth
Normal Form
Definition. A multivalued dependency 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
■ 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]
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.
We can state the following points:
■ An all-key relation is always in BCNF since it has no FDs.
■ An all-key relation such as the EMP relation ,which has no FDs but has
the MVD Ename -->->Pname | Dname, is not in 4NF.
■ A relation that is not in 4NF due to a nontrivial MVD must be
decomposed
to convert
Copyright it into
© 2007 RamezaElmasri
setandof relations
Shamkant B. Navathe in 4NF. Slide 10- 66
Multivalued Dependencies and Fourth
Normal Form
(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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 11- 67

Join Dependencies and Fifth Normal
Form
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 nonadditive join decomposition into R1, R2, …
, Rn. Hence, for every such r we have

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,
Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 68
3. Join Dependencies and Fifth Normal
Form
(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.

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 11- 69

 Normalization Example.
Consider the following relation:
CAR_SALE(Car#, Date_sold, Salesperson#, Commission%,
Discount_amt)
Assume that a car may be sold by multiple salespeople,
and hence {Car#,Salesperson#} is the primary key.
Additional dependencies are
Date_sold  Discount_amt and
Salesperson#  Commission%
Based on the given primary key, is this relation in 1NF,
2NF, or 3NF? Why or why not? How would you
successively normalize it completely?

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 70

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
 General Normal Form Definitions (For Multiple
Keys)
 BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form)

Copyright © 2007 Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant B. Navathe Slide 10- 71