- 27 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Ch 4: Relational Database Design

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ch 4: Relational Database Design

4.1 Features of Good Relational designs

- Four Informal measures
- Semantics of the relation attributes
- Reducing the redundant values in tuples.
- Reducing the null values
- Disallowing the possibility of generating spurious(wrong) tuples

- Design a realm schema so that it is easy to explain its meaning .Do not combine attributes from multiple entity types & relationship into single relation.
- In general ,the easier it is to explain the semantics of relation, the better the relation schema design will be.

- Goal of dbase is to reduce storage space used by relationship.
- Grouping attributes into relation schemas has a significant effect on storage space.
- For e.g. if we combine Employee with department & project , works_on will result into EMP_DEPT & EMP_PRJ.
- Resultant relation shows repetition of several values leading to higher storage.
- Other serious problems is of Update anomalies which is classified as insert, delete & modification anomalies.

- Insert a new emp , we must include value for dept or need to place NULL (if emp doesnot work for dept yet.) & need to enter correctly so consistency problem donot occur.
- It is difficult to enter new dept that has no employee as we cannot insert Null in ENO as its is primary key

- If we delete from EMP_DEPT an employee that happens to represent the last employee in that dept , the info abt dept is also lost from dbase

- If we change the value of one of attributes say that of manager of dept 5 , we need to change in each tuple where dept no is 5, else it will lead to inconsistent.
- Design Dbase so that no insertion, deletion & modification anomalies are present .

- NULL have multiple interpretations such as:
- Attributes that do not apply to this tuple.
- Attribute value for this tuple is unknown.
- Value is known but absent, i.e. it has not been recorded yet.

- Problem may occur in JOIN , and aggregrate operations.

- Design relation schemas so that they can be joined with equality condition on attributes that are primary or foreign key.

- A functional dependency, denoted by X Y (Read X functionally determines Y), between two sets of attributes X and Y that are subsets of R specifies a constraint on possible tuples that can be form a relation state r of R.
- The constraint is that for for all pairs of tuples t1 and t2 in r such that
t1 [X] = t2 [X] , they must also have,

t1 [Y] = t2 [Y].

In other words

Whenever two tuples of r agree on their X value, they also agree on their Y value.

- Main concept associated with normalization.
- Functional Dependency
- Describes relationship between attributes in a relation.
- If A and B are attributes of relation R, B is functionally dependent on A (denoted A B), if each value of A in R is associated with exactly one value of B in R.

- Diagrammatic representation:

- Determinant of a functional dependency refers to attribute or group of attributes on left-hand side of the arrow.

- K is a superkey for relation schema R if and only if K R
- K is a candidate key for R if and only if
- K R, and
- for no K, R

- Functional dependencies allow us to express constraints that cannot be expressed using superkeys. Consider the schema:
bor_loan = (customer_id, loan_number, amount ).

We expect this functional dependency to hold:

loan_numberamount

but would not expect the following to hold:

amount customer_name

- Main use of FD is to describe further relation schema R by specifying constraints on its attributes that must hold all times.
- Certain FD can be specified without referring to specific relation.
- {state, driving_licence} ENO
- {pincode) area
- {telephone code}city

ENOEname

Pnumber{pname,plocation}

{eno,pnumber}hours

- Eno uniquely determines emp name
- Pnumber uniquely determines project name & location
- Combination of eno , pnumber uniquely determines numbers of hours that employee had worked on that project.
- FD plays a key role in differentiating good DB design from bad DB design.

- Possible FD’s
- TEXTCOURSE hold
- But,
- TEACHERCOURSE is ruled out.

- To test relations to see whether they are legal under a given set of functional dependencies. If a relation r is legal under a set F of FD’s, we say that r satisfies F.
- To specify constraints on the set of legal relations. If we wish to constrain ourselves to relations on schema R that satisfy a set F of functional dependencies, we say that F holds on K.

- Suppose one is designing a system to track vehicles and the capacity of their engines. Each vehicle has a unique vehicle identification number(VIN). One would write VIN → EngineCapacity because it would be inappropriate for a vehicle's engine to have more than one capacity. (Assuming, in this case, that vehicles only have one engine.)
- However, EngineCapacity → VIN, is incorrect because there could be many vehicles with the same engine capacity.

- Trivial FD : A FD X->Y is trivial if Y, the right hand side of the functional dependency is a subset of X.
- Eg. : A FD
- {EmpID, EmpAddress}->{EmpAddress} is trivial, as {EmpAddress} is a subset of {EmpID,EmpAddress}.
- Non Trivial FD : A FD is called Nontrivial if Y is not a subset of X.
- Eg. : A FD
- {EmpID,EmpAddress}->{EmpPhone} is non trivial, as {EmpPhone} is not subset of {EmpID,EmpAddress}

- The set of all FDs that include F as well as all dependencies that are implied by a given set F of FDs is called the closure of F, denoted by F+.
- F= ENO{ ENAME,DOB,ADDRESS,DNUM}
DNUMBER{DNAME,MGRNO}

SOME ADDITIONAL FD’S ARE

ENO DNAME,MGRNO

DUMBERDNAME

- Reflexive: if B is a subset of A, then A B.
- Augmentation: if A B then AC BC
- Transitivity: it A B and B C then A C.
- Self – determination: A A.
- Decomposition: If A BC, then AB, AC.
- Union: it A B and A C, then A BC
- Composition: if A B, C D then AC BD.
- Pseudo transitive : if A B and rBC then Ar C.

- First three axioms
- Reflexive: if B is a subset of A, then A B.
- Augmentation: if A B then AC BC
- Transitivity: it A B and B C then A C.
are sound & complete

By sound, we mean that given a set of FD on relation R, any dependency that can infer from F holds in every reln satisfies the dependencies. They do not generate incorrect FD.

By complete, we mean that using 3 FC repeatedly to a complete set of all possible dependencies that can be inferred from F.

- R = (A, B, C, G, H, I)F = { A BA CCG HCG IB H}
- some extra members of F+
- A H
- by transitivity from A B and B H

- AG I
- by augmentingA C with G, to get AG CG and then transitivity with CG I

- CG HI
- by unionCG I & CG H
- OR
- by augmentingCG I to infer CG CGI,
and augmenting of CG H to inferCGI HI,

and then transitivity

- A H

- Given a set of attributes a, define the closureof aunderF (denoted by a+) as the set of attributes that are functionally determined by a under F
- Algorithm to compute a+, the closure of a under F
result := a;while (changes to result) dofor each in F dobeginif result then result := result end

- R = (A, B, C, G, H, I)
- F = {A BA C CG HCG IB 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)

- Sets of functional dependencies may have redundant dependencies that can be inferred from the others
- For example: A C is redundant in: {AB, BC}
- Parts of a functional dependency may be redundant
- E.g.: on RHS: {AB, BC, ACD} can be simplified to {A B, BC, AD}
- E.g.: on LHS: {A B, BC, ACD} can be simplified to {A B, BC, AD}

- Intuitively, a canonical cover of F is a “minimal” set of functional dependencies equivalent to F, having no redundant dependencies or redundant parts of dependencies

- Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional dependency in F.
- Attribute A is extraneous in if A and F logically implies (F – {}) {( – A) }.
- Attribute A is extraneous in if A and the set of functional dependencies (F – {}) {(– A)} logically implies F.

- Note: implication in the opposite direction is trivial in each of the cases above, since a “stronger” functional dependency always implies a weaker one
- Example: Given F = {AC, ABC }
- B is extraneous in AB C because {AC, AB C} logically implies AC (I.e. the result of dropping B from AB C).

- Example: Given F = {AC, ABCD}
- C is extraneous in ABCD since AB C can be inferred even after deleting C

- Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the functional dependency in F.
- To test if attribute A is extraneousin
- compute ({} – A)+ using the dependencies in F
- check that ({} – A)+ contains ; if it does, A is extraneous in

- To test if attribute A is extraneous in
- compute + using only the dependencies in F’ = (F – {}) {(– A)},
- check that + contains A; if it does, A is extraneous in

- A canonical coverfor F is a set of dependencies Fc such that
- F logically implies all dependencies in Fc, and
- Fclogically implies all dependencies in F, and
- No functional dependency in Fccontains an extraneous attribute, and
- Each left side of functional dependency in Fcis unique.

- To compute a canonical cover for F:repeatUse the union rule to replace any dependencies in F11 and 12 with 112Find a functional dependency with an extraneous attribute either in or in If an extraneous attribute is found, delete it from until F does not change
- Note: Union rule may become applicable after some extraneous attributes have been deleted, so it has to be re-applied

- R = (A, B, C)F = {A BC B C A BABC}
- Combine A BC and A B into A BC
- Set is now {A BC, B C, ABC}

- A is extraneous in ABC
- Check if the result of deleting A from ABC is implied by the other dependencies
- Yes: in fact, BC is already present!

- Set is now {A BC, B C}

- Check if the result of deleting A from ABC is implied by the other dependencies
- C is extraneous in ABC
- Check if A C is logically implied by A B and the other dependencies
- Yes: using transitivity on A B and B C.
- Can use attribute closure of A in more complex cases

- Yes: using transitivity on A B and B C.

- Check if A C is logically implied by A B and the other dependencies
- The canonical cover is: A BB C

- Now we define a set of FD to be irreducible as minimal; if and only if it satisfies the following two properties.
(1) The right hand side of every FD in S involve just one attribute (i.e., it is a singleton set)

(2)The left hand side of every FD in S is irreducible in turn meaning that no attribute can be discarded from the determinant without changing the CLOSURE S+.

- A BC,
- B C
- A B
- AB C
- AC D
Compute an irreducible set of FD that is equivalent to this given set.

Bring answer in reducible form

(1)The step is to rewrite the FD such that each has a singleton right hand side.

- A B
- A C
- B C
- A B
- AB C
- AC D
We observe that the FD A B occurs twice. So one occurrence will be eliminated.

A BC,

B C

A B

AB C

AC D

- Next, attributed C can be eliminated from the left hand side of the FD AC D
- Because we have A C,
- By augmentation AA AC
- A AC
(Augmentation: if X Y then XZ YZ)

- A AC

- A AC AC D

Thus C on the left hand side is redundant.

A C

B C

A B

AB C

AC D

3.Next, we observe that the FD AB C can be eliminated, because again we have

A C

By augmentation AB CB

By decomposition AB C AB B

4.Finally, the FD A C is implied by the FD A B and B C, by transitivity so it can be eliminated.

Now we have A B

B C

A D

This set is irreducible.

A C

B C

A B

AB C

A D