Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byMatthew Dwyer Modified over 2 years ago

1
CM20145 Further DB Design – Normalization Dr Alwyn Barry Dr Joanna Bryson

2
Last Time Database design is an ongoing, iterative process. Requirements come from data, user demands, design issues. Change occurs: Corporations & technologies grow. Programmers & users learn. Views / security. Lossless-join decomposition Now: Science for improving design.

3
Design Process & Normalization We assume a schema R is given. R could have been generated when converting E-R diagram to a set of tables. R could have been a single relation containing all attributes that are of interest (called universal relation). Normalization breaks R into smaller relations. R could be the result of any ad hoc design of relations, which we then test & convert to normal form.

4
Overview First Normal Form. Functional Dependencies. Second Normal Form. Third Normal Form. Boyce-Codd Normal Form. Fourth Normal Form. Fifth Normal Form. Domain Key / Normal Form. Design Process & Problems.

5
First Normal Form – 1NF You arent supposed to have more than one value per attribute of a tuple. All tuples have the same number of attributes. Necessary for a relational database. NameOfficeOffice Hours Barry2.231pm, 4pm BrysonL2.2711am, 5pm BAD

6
Getting Caught Out With 1NF A domain is atomic if its elements are considered to be indivisible units. Examples of non-atomic domains: Set-valued attributes, composite attributes. Identifiers like CS101 that can be broken up into parts. A relational schema R is in first normal form if the domains of all attributes of R are atomic. Non-atomic values: complicate storage, encourage redundancy, Depend on interpretation built into application programs.

7
Are You Atomic? Atomicity is not an intrinsic property of the elements of the domain. Atomicity is a property of how the elements of the domain are used. E.g. strings containing a possible delimiter (here: a space) cities = Melbourne Sydney (non-atomic: space separated list) surname = Fortescue Smythe (atomic: compound surname) E.g. strings encoding two separate fields bucs_login = cssjjb If the first two characters are extracted to find the department, the domain bucs_login is not atomic. Leads to encoding of information in application program rather than in the database.

8
Second Normal Form (2NF) Violated when a nonkey column is a fact about part of the primary key. A column is not fully functionally dependent on the full primary key. CUSTOMER-CREDIT in this case: ORDER ITEMIDCUSTOMERIDQUANTITYCUSTOMER-CREDIT DeskJJB25OK ChairAMB3POOR ITEM *itemid … ORDER quantity … CUSTOMER *customerid customer-credit … From Watson BAD FIX

9
Def: Functional Dependency Let R be a relation schema R and R The functional dependency (FD) holds on R ( is FD on ) iff for any legal relations r(R): whenever any two tuples t 1 and t 2 of r agree on the attributes they also agree on the attributes. i.e. (t 1 ) = (t 2 ) (t 1 ) = (t 2 ) Example: Consider r(A,B) with the following instance of r: A B does NOT hold, but B A does hold A: InitialsB: Chore JJBGrading AMBSetting Tutorials JJBWriting Unit Reviews

10
Functional Dependencies: Uses Way to encode business rules. Specify constraints on the set of legal relations. We say that F holds on R if all legal relations on R satisfy the set of FDs F. Test relations to see if they are legal under a given set of FDs. If a relation r is legal under a set F of FDs, we say that r satisfies F.

11
Functional Dependencies An FD is an assertion about a schema, not an instance. If we only consider an instance or a few instances, we cant tell if an FD holds. Inspecting only a few bird species (e.g. crows, cardinals and canaries) we might conclude colour species. However, this would be a bad FD as we would find out if we found some ravens. Thus, identifying FDs is part of the data modelling process.

12
Trivial Functional Dependencies An FD is trivial if it is satisfied by all instances of a relation E.g. customer-name, loan-number customer-name customer-name customer-name In general, is trivial if Permitting such FDs makes certain definitions and algorithms easier to state.

13
Functional Dependency vs Key FDs can express the same constraints we could express using keys: Superkeys: K is a superkey for relation schema R if and only if K R Candidate keys: K is a candidate key for R if and only if K R, and there is no K K such that K R Of course, which candidate key becomes the primary key is arbitrary.

14
FDs <> Keys FDs can represent more information than keys can on their own. Consider the following Loan-info-schema: Loan-info-schema = (customer-name, loan-number, branch-name, amount). We expect these FDs to hold: loan-number amount loan-number branch-name We could try to express this by making loan- number the key, however the following FD does not hold: loan-number customer-name Incidentally, this isnt a very good table! (¬2NF)

15
FD Closure Given a set F of FDs, other FDs are logically implied. E.g. If A B and B C, we can infer that A C The set of all FDs implied by F is the closure of F, written F +. Find F + by applying Armstrongs Axioms: if, then (reflexivity) if, then (augmentation) if, and, then (transitivity) Additional rules (derivable from Armstrongs Axioms): If and holds, then holds (union) If holds, then holds and holds (decomposition) If holds and holds, then holds (pseudotransitivity)

16
Bad Decomposition Example (From Last Time) A Non Lossless-Join Decomposition R = (A, B) R 1 = (A), R 2 = (B) AB A B 1212 r A (r) B(r) A (r) B (r) AB Thus, r is different to A (r) B (r) So A,B is not a lossless-join decomposition of R.

17
FDs & Lossless Decomposition All attributes of an original schema (R) must appear in the decomposition (R 1, R 2 ): R = R 1 R 2 Lossless-join decomposition. For all possible relations r on schema R r = R1 (r) R2 (r) A decomposition of R into R 1 and R 2 is lossless-join if and only if at least one of the following dependencies is in F + : R 1 R 2 R 1 R 1 R 2 R 2

18
Second Normal Form (2NF) Violated when a nonkey column is a fact about part of the primary key. A column is not fully functionally dependent on the full primary key. CUSTOMER-CREDIT in this case: ORDER ITEMIDCUSTOMERIDQUANTITYCUSTOMER-CREDIT DeskJJB25OK ChairAMB3POOR ITEM *itemid … ORDER quantity … CUSTOMER *customerid customer-credit … From Watson BAD FIX

19
Third Normal Form (3NF) Violated when a nonkey column is a fact about another nonkey column. A column is not fully functionally dependent on the primary key. R is 3NF iff R is 2NF and has no transitive dependencies. EXCHANGE RATE violates this. STOCK STOCK CODENATIONEXCHANGE RATE GOOGUSA0.67 NOK FIN0.46 BAD FIX

20
Boyce-Codd (BCNF) Arises when a table: has multiple candidate keys, the candidate keys are composite, the candidate keys overlap. R is BCNF iff every determinant is a cand. key. E.g. Assume one consultant per problem per client, and one problem per consultant. If client-problem is the primary key, how do you add a new consultant? Like 3NF but now worry about all fields. ADVISOR CLIENTPROBLEMCONSULTANT AlphaMarketingGomez AlphaProductionRaginiski BAD FIX

21
Design Goals & their discontents Goals for a relational database design: eliminate redundancies by decomposing relations, must be able to recover original data using lossless joins, prefer not to loose dependencies. BCNF: no redundancies, no guarantee of dependency preservation. 3NF: dependency preservation, but possible redundancies.

22
Fourth normal form (4NF) A row should not contain two or more independent multivalued facts. 4NF iff BCNF & no non-trivial multi- valued dependencies. Multivalued dependency means the value of one attributed determines a set of values for another. STUDENT STUDENTIDSPORTSUBJECT… 50FootballEnglish… 50FootballMusic… 50TennisBotany… 50KarateBotany… BAD FIX

23
Fifth normal form (5NF) 5NF iff a relation has no join dependency. The schemas R 1, R 2,.., R n have a join dependency over R if they define a lossless-join decomposition over R. This is way too complicated, dont worry about it.

24
Domain Key Normal Form Every constraint on the relation must be a logical consequence of the domain constraints and the key constraints that apply to the relation. Key: unique identifier. Constraint: rule governing attribute values. Domain: set of values of the same data type. No known algorithm gives DK/NF.

25
E-R Model and Normalization When an E-R diagram is carefully designed, identifying all entities correctly, the tables generated should not need further normalization. However, in a real (imperfect) design there can be FDs from non-key attributes of an entity to other attributes of the entity. The keys identified in E-R diagrams might not be minimal - FDs can help us to identify minimal keys. FDs from non-key attributes of a relationship set are possible, but rare.

26
Denormalization & Performance May want to use non-normalized schema for performance. E.g. displaying customer-name along with account-number and balance requires join of account with depositor. Alternative 1: Use denormalized relation containing attributes of account as well as depositor. faster lookup. extra space and extra execution time for updates. extra coding work for programmer and possibility of error in extra code. Alternative 2: use a materialized view defined as account depositor as above, except less extra coding, errors.

27
Limits of Normalization Examples of bad database design, not caught by normalization. Good: earnings(company-id, year, amount) Bad: earnings-2000, earnings-2001, earnings- 2002, etc., on (company-id, earnings) all are BCNF, but querying across years difficult needs a new table each year company-year(company-id, earnings- 2000,earnings-2001, earnings-2002) in BCNF, but querying across years difficult requires new attribute each year

28
Summary 1 – Rules to Watch 1NF: attributes not atomic. 2NF: non-key attribute FD on part of key. 3NF: one non-key attribute FD on another. Boyce-Codd NF: overlapping but otherwise independent candidate keys. 4NF: multiple, independent multi- valued attributes. 5NF: join dependency. Domain Key / NF: all constraints either domain or key

29
Summary 2 – Concepts Functional Dependencies: Axioms & Closure. Lossless-join decomposition. Design Process. Normalization Problems. Next: Interfaces and Architectures

30
Reading & Exercises Reading Connolly & Begg Chapter (13, 14) Silberschatz Chapters 7. Any other book, the design/normalization chapter. Exercises: Silberschatz 7.1, 7.2, 7.16, 7.23, 7.24,

31
Next Week Architectures and Implementations Integrity and Security

32
Slides after and including this one you are not responsible for, but I am saving in case I decide to use them in the future.

33
Goal: Formalize Good Design Process: Decide whether a particular relation R is in good form. In the case that a relation R is not in good form, decompose it into a set of relations {R 1, R 2,..., R n } such that: each relation is in good form, the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition. Theory: Constraints on the set of legal relations. Require that the value for a certain set of attributes determines uniquely the value for another set of attributes – functional dependencies.

Similar presentations

© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google