Problem 1.

Given relation EMP as in Figure 1, let p1: TITLE < “Programmer” and p2: TITLE >
“Programmer” be two simple predicates. Assume that character strings have an
order among them, based on the alphabetical order.

a) Perform a horizontal fragmentation of relation EMP with respect to {p1; p2}.

b) Explain why the resulting fragmentation (EMP1, EMP2) does not fulfill the
correctness rules of fragmentation.

c) Modify the predicates p1 and p2 so that they partition EMP obeying the
correctness rules of fragmentation. To do this, modify the predicates, compose all
minterm predicates and deduce the corresponding implications, and then
perform a horizontal fragmentation of EMP based on these minterm predicates.
Finally, show that the result has completeness, reconstruction and disjointness
properties.

Fig.1.
a) Perform a horizontal fragmentation of relation EMP with respect to {p1; p2}.

The original EMP:

ENO ENAME TITLE
E1 J.Doe Elect. Eng.
E2 M. Smith Syst. Anal.
E3 A. Lee Mech. Eng.
E4 J. Miller Programmer
E5 B. Casey Syst. Anal
E6 L. Casey Elect. Eng.
E7 L. Chu Elect. Eng.
E8 R. Davis Mech. Eng.

It can be decomposed to EMP1 and EMP2 as

Follows:
EMP1:
ENO ENAME TITLE
E1 J.Doe Elect. Eng.
E3 A. Lee Mech. Eng.
E6 L. Casey Elect. Eng.
 E7 L. Chu Elect. Eng.

EMP2:
ENO ENAME TITLE
E2 M. Smith Syst. Anal.
E5 B. Casey Syst. Anal
E8 R. Davis Mech. Eng.

b) Explain why the resulting fragmentation (EMP1, EMP2) does not fulfill the
correctness rules of fragmentation.

The resulting fragmentation (EMP1, EMP2) does not fufill the correctness and
reconstruction of correctness rules. First the resulting fragmentation does not fulfill
the completeness, because the tuple E4 in the original EMP cannot be found in the
resulting fragmentation EMP1, and EMP2. Furthermore, the resulting
fragmentation does not fulfill the reconstruction requirement. Using the Union
operation in the resulting fragmentation (EMP1, EMP2) cannot reconstruct a
global Relation Emp.

c) Modify the predicates p1 and p2 so that they partition EMP obeying the
correctness rules of fragmentation. To do this, modify the predicates, compose all
minterm predicates and deduce the corresponding implications, and then perform a
horizontal fragmentation of EMP based on these minterm predicates. Finally, show
that the result has completeness, reconstruction and disjointness properties.
Modify p1 and p2 to: P1: TITLE ≤ “Programmer” and P2: TITLE >
“Programmer”

M1: TITLE ≤ “Programmer” ^ TITLE > “Programmer” meaningless

M2: TITLE > “Programmer” ^ TITLE > “Programmer” =>TITLE >

“Programmer”

M3: TITLE ≤ “Programmer” ^TITLE ≤ “Programmer” => TITLE ≤

“Programmer”

M4: TITLE > “Programmer” ^TITLE ≤ “Programmer” meaningless

So the EMP can be decomposed into EMP1 and EMP2:

EMP1:

ENO ENAME TITLE

E2 M. Smith Syst. Anal.
E5 B. Casey Syst. Anal
E8 R. Davis Mech. Eng.

EMP2:

ENO ENAME TITLE

E1 J.Doe Elect. Eng.
E3 A. Lee Mech. Eng.
E4 J. Miller Programmer
E6 L. Casey Elect. Eng.
E7 L. Chu Elect. Eng.
Completeness:

Since the minterm predicates (M2: TITLE > “Programmer” and M3 TITLE
≤“Programmer”) are complete, the resulting fragmentation is complete. All tuples
in the original relation EMP can be found in the resulting relations EMP1, EMP2.

Reconstruction:

The original global relation EMP can be reconstructed by the union

operator on the resulting fragmentation EMP1 and EMP2.

HF= {EMP1, EMP2}

EMP = EMP1  EMP2

Disjointness:

Since the minterm predicate (M2: TITLE > “Programmer” and M3:
TITLE ≤“Programmer” ) are mutually exclusive, the resulting fragmentation is
disjointed. No EMP1 tuple can be found in EMP2, Similarly No EMP2 tuple can
be found in EMP1
Problem 4.
Given relation PAY as in Figure 1, let p1: SAL < 30000 and p2: SAL ≥ 30000 be
two simple predicates. Perform a horizontal fragmentation of PAY with respect to
these predicates to obtain PAY1, and PAY2. Using the fragmentation of PAY,
perform further derived horizontal fragmentation for EMP. Show completeness,
reconstruction, and disjointness of the fragmentation of EMP.

Original PAY Relation:

TITLE SALARY
Elect. Eng. 40,000
Syst. Anal. 34,000
Mech. Eng. 27,000
Programmer 24,000

P1: SAL <30000 P2: SAL ≥ 3000

M1: SAL<30000 ^ SAL ≥ 3000 => 3000 ≤ SAL <30000

M1: SAL ≥ 30000 ^ SAL ≥ 3000 =>SAL <30000
M1: SAL <30000 ^ SAL < 3000 =>SAL <30000
M1: SAL ≥ 30000 ^ SAL < 3000 =>meaningless

PAY can be decomposed into two parts into PAY1 and PAY2 using these minterm
predicates.

PAY1:

TITLE SALARY
Mech. Eng. 27,000
Programmer 24,000

And PAY2 AS:

TITLE SALARY
Elect. Eng. 40,000
Syst. Anal. 34,000
Then EMP can be decomposed based on the fragmentation of PAY:

EMP1 = EMP ⊳<¿ ¿ TITLE PAY1

ENO ENAME TITLE
E3 A. Lee Mech. Eng.
E4 J. Miller Programmer
E7 R. Davis Mech. Eng.

EMP2= EMP ⊳<¿ ¿ TITLE PAY1:

ENO ENAME TITLE
E1 J. Doe Elect. Eng
E2 M. Smith Syst. Anal.
E5 B. Casey Syst. Anal.
E6 L. Chu Elect. Eng.
E8 J. Jones Syst. Anal.

Completeness:
We claim that all tuples in the original relation EMP can be found in the resulting
relations EMP1, EMP2. Otherwise, we have an eEMP, but e  EMP1  e 
EMP2, which leads to the following contradiction:
a) EMP is the member relation of a link whose owner is PAY.
 b) PAY is fragmented as HFPAY={PAY1, PAY2}.
c) TITLE is the join attribute between EMP and PAY. Then, for each tuple
eEMP, there is a tuple e’PAY such that

e[TITLE] = e’[TITLE]

However, e’ PAY1  e’ PAY2. Thus, e’ EMP1 (= EMP semi-join PAY1) 
e’ EMP2 (= EMP semi-join PAY2). It is a contradiction.

Reconstruction:
The original global relation EMP can be reconstructed by the union operator on the
resulting fragmentation: EMP1 and EMP2.

HF = {EMP1, EMP2}
EMP = EMP1  EMP2

Disjointness:
We claim that PAY1 and PAY2 do not have any common tuples. Otherwise, we
have at least a e  EMP1  e  EMP2, which leads to the following contradiction.
e  EMP1   e’  PAY1 such that e[TITLE] = e’[TITLE]
e  EMP2   e’’  PAY2 such that e[TITLE] = e’’[TITLE]

However, TITLE is the key of PAY. Then, we have e’= e’’. That is, PAY1 and
PAY2 are not disjoint. Contradiction!