Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byDale Maxwell Modified about 1 year ago

1
Temple University – CIS Dept. CIS616– Principles of Data Management V. Megalooikonomou Functional Dependencies (based on notes by Silberchatz,Korth, and Sudarshan and notes by C. Faloutsos at CMU)

2
General Overview Formal query languages rel algebra and calculi Commercial query languages SQL QBE, (QUEL) Integrity constraints Functional Dependencies Normalization - ‘good’ DB design

3
Overview Domain; Ref. Integrity constraints Assertions and Triggers Security Functional dependencies why definition Armstrong’s “axioms” closure and cover

4
Functional dependencies motivation: ‘good’ tables takes1 (ssn, c-id, grade, name, address) ‘good’ or ‘bad’?

5
Functional dependencies takes1 (ssn, c-id, grade, name, address)

6
Functional dependencies ‘Bad’ - why?

7
Functional Dependencies Redundancy space inconsistencies insertion/deletion anomalies (later…) What caused the problem?

8
Functional dependencies … ‘name’ depends on ‘ssn’ define ‘depends’

9
Functional dependencies Definition: ‘a’ functionally determines ‘b’

10
Functional dependencies Informally: ‘if you know ‘a’, there is only one ‘b’ to match’

11
Functional dependencies formally: if two tuples agree on the ‘X’ attribute, they *must* agree on the ‘Y’ attribute, too (e.g., if ssn is the same, so should address) … a functional dependency is a generalization of the notion of a key

12
Functional dependencies ‘X’, ‘Y’ can be sets of attributes other examples??

13
Functional dependencies ssn -> name, address ssn, c-id -> grade

14
Functional dependencies K is a superkey for relation R iff K -> R K is a candidate key for relation R iff: K -> R for no a K, a -> R

15
Functional dependencies Closure of a set of FD: all implied FDs – e.g.: ssn -> name, address ssn, c-id -> grade imply ssn, c-id -> grade, name, address ssn, c-id -> ssn

16
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms Closure of a set of FD: all implied FDs – e.g.: ssn -> name, address ssn, c-id -> grade how to find all the implied ones, systematically?

17
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms “Armstrong’s axioms” guarantee soundness and completeness: Reflexivity: e.g., ssn, name -> ssn Augmentation e.g., ssn->name then ssn,grade-> ssn,grade

18
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms Transitivity ssn->address address-> county-tax-rate THEN: ssn-> county-tax-rate

19
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms Reflexivity: Augmentation: Transitivity: ‘sound’ and ‘complete’

20
FDs – finding the closure F+ F + = F repeat for each functional dependency f in F + apply reflexivity and augmentation rules on f add the resulting functional dependencies to F + for each pair of functional dependencies f 1 and f 2 in F + if f 1 and f 2 can be combined using transitivity then add the resulting functional dependency to F + until F + does not change any further We can further simplify manual computation of F + by using the following additional rules

21
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms Additional rules: Union Decomposition Pseudo-transitivity

22
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms Prove ‘Union’ from the three axioms:

23
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms Prove ‘Union’ from the three axioms:

24
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms Prove Pseudo-transitivity:

25
FDs - Armstrong’s axioms Prove Decomposition

26
FDs - Closure F+ Given a set F of FD (on a schema) F+ is the set of all implied FD. E.g., takes(ssn, c-id, grade, name, address) ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address }F}F

27
FDs - Closure F+ ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address ssn-> ssn ssn, c-id-> address c-id, address-> c-id... F+

28
FDs - Closure F+ R=(A,B,C,G,H,I) F= { A->B A->C CG->H CG->I B->H} Some members of F+: A->H AG->I CG->HI

29
FDs - Closure A+ Given a set F of FD (on a schema) A+ is the set of all attributes determined by A: takes(ssn, c-id, grade, name, address) ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address {ssn}+ =?? }F}F

30
FDs - Closure A+ takes(ssn, c-id, grade, name, address) ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address {ssn}+ ={ssn, name, address } }F}F

31
FDs - Closure A+ takes(ssn, c-id, grade, name, address) ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address {c-id}+ = ?? }F}F

32
FDs - Closure A+ takes(ssn, c-id, grade, name, address) ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address {c-id, ssn}+ = ?? }F}F

33
FDs - Closure A+ if A+ = {all attributes of table} then ‘A’ is a candidate key

34
FDs - Closure A+ Algorithm to compute +, the closure of under F result := ; while (changes to result) do for each in F do begin if result then result := result end

35
FDs - Closure A+ (example) R = (A, B, C, G, H, I) F = {A B, A C, CG H, CG I, B H} (AG) + 1.result = AG 2.result = ABCG(A C and A B) 3.result = ABCGH(CG H and CG AGBC) 4.result = ABCGHI(CG I and CG AGBCH) Is AG a candidate key? 1. Is AG a super key? 1. Does AG R? 2. Is any subset of AG a superkey? 1. Does A + R? 2. Does G + R?

36
FDs - A+ closure Diagrams AB->C (1) A->BC (2) B->C (3) A->B (4) C A B

37
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc Given a set F of FD (on a schema) Fc is a minimal set of equivalent FD. E.g., takes(ssn, c-id, grade, name, address) ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address ssn,name-> name, address ssn, c-id-> grade, name F

38
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address ssn,name-> name, address ssn, c-id-> grade, name F Fc

39
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc why do we need it? define it properly compute it efficiently

40
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc why do we need it? easier to compute candidate keys define it properly compute it efficiently

41
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc define it properly - three properties every FD a->b has no extraneous attributes on the RHS same for the LHS all LHS parts are unique

42
‘extraneous’ attribute: if the closure is the same, before and after its elimination or if F-before implies F-after and vice-versa FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc

43
ssn, c-id -> grade ssn-> name, address ssn,name-> name, address ssn, c-id-> grade, name F

44
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc Algorithm: examine each FD; drop extraneous LHS or RHS attributes merge FDs with same LHS repeat until no change

45
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc Trace algo for AB->C (1) A->BC (2) B->C (3) A->B (4)

46
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc Trace algo for AB->C (1) A->BC (2) B->C (3) A->B (4) (4) and (2) merge: AB->C (1) A->BC (2) B->C (3)

47
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc AB->C (1) A->BC (2) B->C (3) in (2): ‘C’ is extr. AB->C (1) A->B (2’) B->C (3)

48
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc AB->C (1) A->B (2’) B->C (3) in (1): ‘A’ is extr. B->C (1’) A->B (2’) B->C (3)

49
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc B->C (1’) A->B (2’) B->C (3) (1’) and (3) merge A->B (2’) B->C (3) nothing is extraneous: ‘canonical cover’

50
FDs - ‘canonical cover’ Fc AFTER A->B (2’) B->C (3) BEFORE AB->C (1) A->BC (2) B->C (3) A->B (4)

51
Overview - conclusions Domain; Ref. Integrity constraints Assertions and Triggers Functional dependencies why definition Armstrong’s “axioms” closure and cover

Similar presentations

© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google