NORMALIZATION
COSC 6340
Spring 2015
Objective
Normalization presents a set of rules that tables
and databases must follow to be well structured.
Historically presented as a sequence of normal
forms
First Normal From
A table is in the first normal form iff
The domain of each attribute contains only
atomic values, and
The value of each attribute contains only a
single value from that domain.
In layman's terms. it means every column of
your table should only contain single values
Example
For a library
Patron ID Borrowed books
C45 B33, B44, B55
C12 B56
1-NF Solution
Patron ID Borrowed book
C45 B33
C45 B44
C45 B33
C12 B56
Example
For an airline
Flight Weekdays
UA59 Mo We Fr
UA73 Mo Tu We Th Fr
1NF Solution
Flight Weekday
UA59 Mo
UA59 We
UA59 Fr
UA73 Mo
UA73 We
… …
Implication for the ER model
Watch for entities that can have multiple values
for the same attribute
Phone numbers, …
What about course schedules?
MW 5:30-7:00pm
Can treat them as atomic time slots
Functional dependency
Let X and Y be sets of attributes in a table T
Y is functionally dependent on X in T iff for
each set x R.X there is precisely one
corresponding set y R.Y
Y is fully functional dependent on X in T if Y is
functional dependent on X and Y is not
functional dependent on any proper subset of X
Example
Book table
BookNo Title Author Year
B1 Moby Dick H. Melville 1851
B2 Lincoln G. Vidal 1984
Author attribute is:
functionally dependent on the pair
{ BookNo, Title}
fully functionally dependent on BookNo
Why it matters
table BorrowedBooks
BookNo Patron Address Due
B1 J. Fisher 101 Main Street 3/2/15
B2 L. Perez 202 Market Street 2/28/15
Address attribute is
functionally dependent on the pair
{ BookNo, Patron}
fully functionally dependent on Patron
Problems
Cannot insert new patrons in the system until
they have borrowed books
Insertion anomaly
Must update all rows involving a given patron if
he or she moves.
Update anomaly
Will lose information about patrons that have
returned all the books they have borrowed
Deletion anomaly
Armstrong inference rules (1974)
Axioms:
Reflexivity: if YX, then X→Y
Augmentation: if X→Y, then WX→WY
Transitivity: if X→Y and Y→Z, then X→Z
Derived Rules:
Union: if X→Y and X→Z, the X→YZ
Decomposition: if X→YZ, then X→Y and X→Z
Pseudotransitivity: if X→Y and WY→Z, then
XW→Z
Armstrong inference rules (1974)
Axioms are both
Sound:
when applied to a set of functional
dependencies they only produce dependency
tables that belong to the transitive closure of
that set
Complete:
can produce all dependency tables that
belong to the transitive closure of the set
Armstrong inference rules (1974)
Three last rules can be derived from the first
three (the axioms)
Let us look at the union rule:
if X→Y and X→Z, the X→YZ
Using the first three axioms, we have:
if X→Y, then XX→XY same as X→XY (2nd)
if X→Z, then YX→YZ same as XY→YZ (2nd)
if X→XY and XY→YZ, then X→YZ (3rd)
Second Normal Form
A table is in 2NF iff
It is in 1NF and
no non-prime attribute is dependent on any
proper subset of any candidate key of the
table
A non-prime attribute of a table is an attribute
that is not a part of any candidate key of the
table
A candidate key is a minimal superkey
Example
Library allows patrons to request books that are
currently out
BookNo Patron PhoneNo
B3 J. Fisher 555-1234
B2 J. Fisher 555-1234
B2 M. Amer 555-4321
Example
Candidate key is {BookNo, Patron}
We have
Patron → PhoneNo
Table is not 2NF
Potential for
Insertion anomalies
Update anomalies
Deletion anomalies
2NF Solution
Put telephone number in separate Patron table
BookNo Patron Patron PhoneNo
B3 J. Fisher J. Fisher 555-1234
B2 J. Fisher M. Amer 555-4321
B2 M. Amer
Third Normal Form
A table is in 3NF iff
it is in 2NF and
all its attributes are determined only by its
candidate keys and not by any non-prime
attributes
Example
Table BorrowedBooks
BookNo Patron Address Due
B1 J. Fisher 101 Main Street 3/2/15
B2 L. Perez 202 Market Street 2/28/15
Candidate key is BookNo
Patron → Address
3NF Solution
Put address in separate Patron table
BookNo Patron Due
B1 J. Fisher 3/2/15
B2 L. Perez 2/28/15
Patron Address
J. Fisher 101 Main Street
L. Perez 202 Market Street
Another example
Tournament winners
Tournament Year Winner DOB
Indiana Invitational 1998 Al Fredrickson 21 July 1975
Cleveland Open 1999 Bob Albertson 28 Sept. 1968
Des Moines Masters 1999 Al Fredrickson 21 July 1975
Candidate key is {Tournament, Year}
Winner →DOB
Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Stricter form of 3NF
A table T is in BCNF iff
for every one of its non-trivial dependencies
X → Y, X is a super key for T
Most tables that are in 3NF also are in BCNF
Example
Manager Project Branch
Alice Alpha Austin
Alice Delta Austin
Carol Alpha Houston
Dean Delta Houston
We can assume
Manager → Branch
{Project, Branch} → Manager
Example
Manager Project Branch
Alice Alpha Austin
Bob Delta Houston
Carol Alpha Houston
Alice Delta Austin
Not in BCNF because Manager → Branch and
Manager is not a superkey
Will decomposition work?
A decomposition (I)
Manager Project Manager Branch
Alice Alpha Alice Austin
Bob Delta Bob Houston
Carol Alpha Carol Houston
Alice Delta
Two-table solution does not preserve the
dependency {Project, Branch} → Manager
A decomposition (II)
Manager Project Manager Branch
Alice Alpha Alice Austin
Bob Delta Bob Houston
Carol Alpha Carol Houston
Alice Delta Dean Houston
Dean Delta
Cannot have two or more managers managing
the same project at the same branch
Multivalued dependencies
Assume the column headings in a table
are divided into three disjoint groupings X,
Y, and Z
For a particular row, we can refer to the
data beneath each group of headings as x,
y, and z respectively
Multivalued dependencies
A multivalued dependency X =>Y occurs if
For any xc actually occurring in the table and
the list of all the xcyz combinations that occur
in the table, we will find that xc is associated
with the same y entries regardless of z.
A trivial multivalued dependency X =>Y is one
where either
Y is a subset of X, or
Z is empty (X Y has all column headings)
Fourth Normal Form
A table is in 4NF iff
For every one of its non-trivial multivalued
dependencies X => Y, X is either:
A candidate key or
A superset of a candidate key
Example from Wikipedia
Restaurant Pizza DeliveryArea
Pizza Milano Thin crust SW Houston
Pizza Milano Thick crust SW Houston
Pizza Firenze Thin crust NW Houston
Pizza Firenze Thick crust NW Houston
Pizza Milano Thin crust NW Houston
Pizza Milano Thick crust NW Houston
Discussion
The table has no non-key attributes
Key is { Restaurant, Pizza, DeliveryArea}
Two non-trivial multivalued dependencies
Restaurant => Pizza
Restaurant => DeliveryArea
since each restaurant delivers the same pizzas
to all its delivery areas
Restaurant DeliveryArea
4NF Solution
Pizza Milano SW Houston
Pizza Firenze NW Houston
Pizza Milano NW Houston
Two separate tables
Restaurant Pizza
Pizza Milano Thin crust
Pizza Milano Thick crust
Pizza Firenze Thin crust
Pizza Firenze Thick crust
Join dependency
A table T is subject to a join dependency if it
can always be recreated by joining multiple
tables each having a subset of the attributes of T
The join dependency is said to be trivial if one
of the tables in the join has all the attributes of
the table T
Notation: *{ A, B, …} on T
Fifth normal form
A table T is said to be 5NF iff
Every non-trivial join dependency in it is
implied by its candidate keys
A join dependency *{A, B, … Z} on T is implied
by the candidate key(s) of T if and only if each of
A, B, …, Z is a superkey for T
An example
Store Brand Product
Circuit City Apple Tablets
Circuit City Apple Phones
Circuit City Toshiba Laptops
CompUSA Apple Laptops
Note that Circuit City sells Apple tablets and
phones but only Toshiba laptops
A very bad decomposition
Store Product Brand Product
Circuit City Tablets Apple Tablets
Circuit City Phones Apple Phones
Circuit City Laptops Apple Laptops
CompUSA Laptops Toshiba Laptops
Let see what happens when we do a natural join
The result of the join
Store Brand Product
Circuit City Apple Tablets
Circuit City Apple Phones
Circuit City Apple Laptops
Circuit City Toshiba Laptops
CompUSA Apple Laptops
CompUSA Toshiba Laptops
Introduces two spurious tuples
A different table
Store Brand Product
Circuit City Apple Tablets
Circuit City Apple Phones
Circuit City Apple Laptops
Circuit City Toshiba Laptops
CompUSA Apple Laptops
Assume now that any store carrying a given
brand and selling a product that is made by that
brand will always carry that product
The same decomposition
Store Product Brand Product
Circuit City Tablets Apple Tablets
Circuit City Phones Apple Phones
Circuit City Laptops Apple Laptops
CompUSA Laptops Toshiba Laptops
Let see what happens when we do a natural join
The result of the join
Store Brand Product
Circuit City Apple Tablets
Circuit City Apple Phones
Circuit City Apple Laptops
Circuit City Toshiba Laptops
CompUSA Apple Laptops
CompUSA Toshiba Laptops
Still one spurious tuple
The right decomposition
Store Product Brand Product
Circuit City Tablets Apple Tablets
Circuit City Phones Apple Phones
Circuit City Laptops Apple Laptops
CompUSA Laptops Toshiba Laptops
Store Brand
Circuit City Apple
Circuit City Toshiba
CompUSA Apple
Conclusion
The first "big" table was 5NF
The second table was decomposable
Lossless
Decomposition
General Concept
If R(A, B, C) satisfies AB
We can project it on A,B and A,C
without losing information
Lossless decomposition
R = AB(R) ⋈ AC(R)
AB(R) is the projection of R on AB
⋈ is the natural join operator
Example
Course Instructor Text
4330 Paris none
4330 Cheng none
3330 Hillford Patterson & Hennessy
Observe that Course Text
A lossless decomposition
Course Text
Course, Text (R) 4330 none
3330 Patterson & Hennessy
Course Instructor
4330 Paris
Course, Instructor (R)
4330 Cheng
3330 Hillford
A different case
Course Instructor Text
4330 Paris Silberschatz and Peterson
4330 Cheng none
3330 Hillford Patterson & Hennessy
Now Course Text
R cannot be decomposed
A lossy decomposition
Course Text
4330 none
Course, Text (R)
4330 Silberschatz & Peterson
3330 Patterson & Hennessy
Course Instructor
4330 Paris
Course, Instructor (R) 4330 Cheng
3330 Hillford
An Example
Normalisation Example
We have a table Columns
representing orders in Order
an online store Product
Each row represents Quantity
an item on a
UnitPrice
particular order
Customer
Primary key is
{Order, Product} Address
Functional Dependencies
Each order is for a single customer:
Order Customer
Each customer has a single address
Customer Address
Each product has a single price
Product UnitPrice
As Order Customer and Customer Address
Order Address
2NF Solution (I)
First decomposition
First table
Order Product Quantity UnitPrice
Second table
Order Customer Address
2NF Solution (II)
Second decomposition
First table
Order Product Quantity
Second table
Order Customer Address
Third table
Product UnitPrice
3NF
In second table
Order Customer Address
Customer Address
Split second table into
Order Customer
Customer Address
Normalisation to 2NF
Second normal form To remove the first FD we
means no partial project over
dependencies on {Order, Customer,
candidate keys Address} (R1)
{Order} {Customer, and
Address} {Order, Product, Quantity,
{Product} UnitPrice} (R2)
{UnitPrice}
Normalisation to 2NF
R1 is now in 2NF, but To remove this we project over
there is still a partial FD {Product, UnitPrice} (R3)
in R2 and
{Product} {UnitPrice} {Order, Product, Quantity} (R4)
Normalisation to 3NF
R has now been split into To remove
3 relations - R1, R3, and {Order} {Customer}
R4 {Address}
R3 and R4 are in 3NF we project R1 over
R1 has a transitive FD {Order, Customer}
on its key {Customer, Address}
Normalisation
1NF:
{Order, Product, Customer, Address, Quantity,
UnitPrice}
2NF:
{Order, Customer, Address}, {Product, UnitPrice},
and {Order, Product, Quantity}
3NF:
{Product, UnitPrice}, {Order, Product, Quantity},
{Order, Customer}, and {Customer, Address}
