1 The Relational Data Model Functional Dependencies.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Lecture 7 Design Theory for Relational Databases (part 1) Slides based on
Advertisements

1 Design Theory for Relational Databases Functional Dependencies Decompositions Normal Forms.
1 Loss-Less Joins. 2 Decompositions uDependency-preservation property: enforce constraints on original relation by enforcing some constraints on resulting.
Database Management Systems Chapter 3 The Relational Data Model (II) Instructor: Li Ma Department of Computer Science Texas Southern University, Houston.
Functional Dependencies - Example
Topics to be discusses Functional Dependency Key
Functional Dependencies, Normalization Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Curt Clifton.
CMPT 354, Simon Fraser University, Fall 2008, Martin Ester 227 Database Systems I Design Theory for Relational Databases.
Functional Dependencies
Functional Dependencies. Babies At a birth, there is one baby (twins would be represented by two births), one mother, any number of nurses, and a doctor.
1 Multivalued Dependencies Fourth Normal Form Source: Slides by Jeffrey Ullman.
1 Multivalued Dependencies Fourth Normal Form. 2 Definition of MVD uA multivalued dependency (MVD) on R, X ->->Y, says that if two tuples of R agree on.
1 Normalization Anomalies Boyce-Codd Normal Form 3 rd Normal Form Source: Slides by Jeffrey Ullman.
1 Multivalued Dependencies Fourth Normal Form Sources: Slides by Jeffrey Ullman book by Ramakrishnan & Gehrke.
Functional Dependencies Definition: If two tuples agree on the attributes A, A, … A 12n then they must also agree on the attributes B, B, … B 12m Formally:
1 Functional Dependencies Meaning of FD’s Keys and Superkeys Inferring FD’s.
1 Functional Dependencies Meaning of FD’s Keys and Superkeys Inferring FD’s Source: slides by Jeffrey Ullman.
The principal problem that we encounter is redundancy, where a fact is repeated in more than one tuple. Most common cause: attempts to group into one relation.
Winter 2002Arthur Keller – CS 1804–1 Schedule Today: Jan. 15 (T) u Normal Forms, Multivalued Dependencies. u Read Sections Assignment 1 due. Jan.
1 Multivalued Dependencies Fourth Normal Form. 2 A New Form of Redundancy uMultivalued dependencies (MVD’s) express a condition among tuples of a relation.
1 Normalization Anomalies Boyce-Codd Normal Form 3 rd Normal Form.
1 Normalization Anomalies Boyce-Codd Normal Form 3 rd Normal Form Source: Slides by Jeffrey Ullman.
Fall 2001Arthur Keller – CS 1803–1 Schedule Today Oct. 2 (T) Relational Model. u Read Sections Assignment 1 due. Personal Letter of Introduction.
1 Functional Dependencies Why FD's Meaning of FD’s Keys and Superkeys Inferring FD’s Source: slides by Jeffrey Ullman.
Winter 2002Arthur Keller – CS 1803–1 Schedule Today: Jan. 10 (TH) u Relational Model, Functional Dependencies. u Read Sections Jan. 15 (T) u Normal.
Bad DB Design Duplicate of data Duplicate of data Updating Updating Deleting Deleting.
Fall 2001Arthur Keller – CS 1804–1 Schedule Today Oct. 4 (TH) Functional Dependencies and Normalization. u Read Sections Project Part 1 due. Oct.
1 Normalization Anomalies Boyce-Codd Normal Form 3 rd Normal Form.
1 Design Theory for Relational Databases Functional Dependencies Decompositions Normal Forms.
Database Systems Normal Forms. Decomposition Suppose we have a relation R[U] with a schema U={A 1,…,A n } – A decomposition of U is a set of schemas.
Decompositions uDo we need to decompose a relation? wSeveral normal forms for relations. If schema in these normal forms certain problems don’t.
Database Management Systems Chapter 3 The Relational Data Model (III) Instructor: Li Ma Department of Computer Science Texas Southern University, Houston.
Databases 1 Seventh lecture. Topics of the lecture Extended relational algebra Normalization Normal forms 2.
1 Normalization Anomalies Boyce-Codd Normal Form 3 rd Normal Form.
Normalization Goal = BCNF = Boyce-Codd Normal Form = all FD’s follow from the fact “key  everything.” Formally, R is in BCNF if for every nontrivial FD.
Databases 2 Storage optimization: functional dependencies, normal forms, data ware houses.
Functional Dependencies. FarkasCSCE 5202 Reading and Exercises Database Systems- The Complete Book: Chapter 3.1, 3.2, 3.3., 3.4 Following lecture slides.
1 IT 244 Database Management System Topic 7 The Relational Data Model Functional Dependencies Ref : -A First Course in Database System (Jeffrey D Ullman,
IST 210 Normalization 2 Todd Bacastow IST 210. Normalization Methods Inspection Closure Functional dependencies are key.
CSC 411/511: DBMS Design Dr. Nan Wang 1 Schema Refinement and Normal Forms Chapter 19.
1 Design Theory for Relational Databases Functional Dependencies Decompositions Normal Forms.
Santa Clara UniversityHolliday – COEN 1783–1 Today’s Topic Today: u Relational Model, Functional Dependencies. u Read Sections Next time u Normal.
1 Multivalued Dependencies Fourth Normal Form Reasoning About FD’s + MVD’s.
1 Multivalued Dependencies Fourth Normal Form Reasoning About FD’s + MVD’s.
Functional Dependencies CIS 4301 Lecture Notes Lecture 8 - 2/7/2006.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute CSCI-4380 – Database Systems David Goldschmidt, Ph.D.
1 Functional Dependencies 函数依赖 Meaning of FD’s Keys and Superkeys Functional Dependencies.
1 The Relational Data Model Tables Schemas Conversion from E/R to Relations Functional Dependencies.
1 Design Theory for Relational Databases Functional Dependencies Decompositions Normal Forms.
Functional Dependencies Zaki Malik September 25, 2008.
Functional Dependencies. Babies Exercise 2.2.5: At a birth, there is one baby (twins would be represented by two births), one mother, any number of nurses,
Databases 1 Sixth lecture. 2 Functional Dependencies X -> A is an assertion about a relation R that whenever two tuples of R agree on all the attributes.
© D. Wong Functional Dependencies (FD)  Given: relation schema R(A1, …, An), and X and Y be subsets of (A1, … An). FD : X  Y means X functionally.
Lecture # 17 Chapter # 10 Normalization Database Systems.
Design Theory for Relational Databases Functional Dependencies Decompositions Normal Forms: BCNF, Third Normal Form Introduction to Multivalued Dependencies.
1 Lecture 8 Design Theory for Relational Databases (part 2) Slides from
4NF & MULTIVALUED DEPENDENCY By Kristina Miguel. Review  Superkey – a set of attributes which will uniquely identify each tuple in a relation  Candidate.
1 Design Theory for Relational Databases Functional Dependencies Decompositions Normal Forms.
1 Database Design: DBS CB, 2 nd Edition Physical RDBMS Model: Schema Design and Normalization Ch. 3.
Formal definition of a key A key is a set of attributes A 1,..., A n such that for any other attribute B: A 1,..., A n  B A minimal key is a set of attributes.
Design Theory for Relational Databases
Cushing, Keller, UlmanJudy Cushing
CPSC-310 Database Systems
CPSC-310 Database Systems
CPSC-310 Database Systems
Multivalued Dependencies & Fourth Normal Form (4NF)
Functional Dependencies
Functional Dependencies
Multivalued Dependencies
Anomalies Boyce-Codd Normal Form 3rd Normal Form
Presentation transcript:

1 The Relational Data Model Functional Dependencies

2 uX -> A is an assertion about a relation R that whenever two tuples of R agree on all the attributes of X, then they must also agree on the attribute A. wSay “X -> A holds in R.” wNotice convention: …,X, Y, Z represent sets of attributes; A, B, C,… represent single attributes. wConvention: no set formers in sets of attributes, just ABC, rather than {A,B,C }.

3 Example uDrinkers(name, addr, beersLiked, manf, favBeer). uReasonable FD’s to assert: 1.name -> addr 2.name -> favBeer 3.beersLiked -> manf

4 Example Data nameaddr beersLiked manffavBeer JanewayVoyager Bud A.B.WickedAle JanewayVoyager WickedAle Pete’sWickedAle SpockEnterprise Bud A.B.Bud Because name -> addr Because name -> favBeer Because beersLiked -> manf

5 FD’s With Multiple Attributes uNo need for FD’s with > 1 attribute on right. wBut sometimes convenient to combine FD’s as a shorthand. wExample: name -> addr and name -> favBeer become name -> addr favBeer u > 1 attribute on left may be essential. wExample: bar beer -> price

6 Keys of Relations uK is a key for relation R if: 1.Set K functionally determines all attributes of R 2.For no proper subset of K is (1) true. wIf K satisfies (1), but perhaps not (2), then K is a superkey. wNote E/R keys have no requirement for minimality, as in (2) for relational keys.

7 Example uConsider relation Drinkers(name, addr, beersLiked, manf, favBeer). u {name, beersLiked} is a superkey because together these attributes determine all the other attributes. wname -> addr favBeer wbeersLiked -> manf

8 Example, Cont. u{name, beersLiked} is a key because neither {name} nor {beersLiked} is a superkey. wname doesn’t -> manf; beersLiked doesn’t -> addr. uIn this example, there are no other keys, but lots of superkeys. wAny superset of {name, beersLiked}.

9 E/R and Relational Keys uKeys in E/R are properties of entities uKeys in relations are properties of tuples. uUsually, one tuple corresponds to one entity, so the ideas are the same. uBut --- in poor relational designs, one entity can become several tuples, so E/R keys and Relational keys are different.

10 Example Data nameaddr beersLiked manffavBeer JanewayVoyager Bud A.B.WickedAle JanewayVoyager WickedAle Pete’sWickedAle SpockEnterprise Bud A.B.Bud Relational key = name beersLiked But in E/R, name is a key for Drinkers, and beersLiked is a key for Beers. Note: 2 tuples for Janeway entity and 2 tuples for Bud entity.

11 Where Do Keys Come From? 1.We could simply assert a key K. Then the only FD’s are K -> A for all atributes A, and K turns out to be the only key obtainable from the FD’s. 2.We could assert FD’s and deduce the keys by systematic exploration. uE/R gives us FD’s from entity-set keys and many-one relationships.

12 FD’s From “Physics” uWhile most FD’s come from E/R keyness and many-one relationships, some are really physical laws.  Example: “no two courses can meet in the same room at the same time” tells us: hour room -> course.

13 Inferring FD’s: Motivation uIn order to design relation schemas well, we often need to tell what FD’s hold in a relation. uWe are given FD’s X 1 -> A 1, X 2 -> A 2,…, X n -> A n, and we want to know whether an FD Y -> B must hold in any relation that satisfies the given FD’s. wExample: If A -> B and B -> C hold, surely A -> C holds, even if we don’t say so.

14 Inference Test uTo test if Y -> B, start assuming two tuples agree in all attributes of Y. uUse the given FD’s to infer that these tuples must also agree in certain other attributes. uIf B is eventually found to be one of these attributes, then Y -> B is true; otherwise, the two tuples, with any forced equalities form a two-tuple relation that proves Y -> B does not follow from the given FD’s.

15 Closure Test uAn easier way to test is to compute the closure of Y, denoted Y +. uBasis: Y + = Y. uInduction: Look for an FD’s left side X that is a subset of the current Y +. If the FD is X -> A, add A to Y +.

16 Y+Y+ new Y + XA

17 Finding All Implied FD’s uMotivation: “normalization,” the process where we break a relation schema into two or more schemas. uExample: ABCD with FD’s AB ->C, C ->D, and D ->A. wDecompose into ABC, AD. What FD’s hold in ABC ? wNot only AB ->C, but also C ->A !

18 Basic Idea uTo know what FD’s hold in a projection, we start with given FD’s and find all FD’s that follow from given ones. uThen, restrict to those FD’s that involve only attributes of the projected schema.

19 Simple, Exponential Algorithm 1.For each set of attributes X, compute X +. 2.Add X ->A for all A in X + - X. 3.However, drop XY ->A whenever we discover X ->A. uBecause XY ->A follows from X ->A. 4.Finally, use only FD’s involving projected attributes.

20 A Few Tricks uNever need to compute the closure of the empty set or of the set of all attributes. uIf we find X + = all attributes, don’t bother computing the closure of any supersets of X.

21 Example uABC with FD’s A ->B and B ->C. Project onto AC. wA + =ABC ; yields A ->B, A ->C. We do not need to compute AB + or AC +. wB + =BC ; yields B ->C. wC + =C ; yields nothing. wBC + =BC ; yields nothing.

22 Example, Continued uResulting FD’s: A ->B, A ->C, and B ->C. uProjection onto AC : A ->C. wOnly FD that involves a subset of {A,C }.

23 A Geometric View of FD’s uImagine the set of all instances of a particular relation. uThat is, all finite sets of tuples that have the proper number of components. uEach instance is a point in this space.

24 Example: R(A,B) {(1,2), (3,4)} {} {(1,2), (3,4), (1,3)} {(5,1)}

25 An FD is a Subset of Instances uFor each FD X -> A there is a subset of all instances that satisfy the FD. uWe can represent an FD by a region in the space. uTrivial FD : an FD that is represented by the entire space. wExample: A -> A.

26 Example: A -> B for R(A,B) {(1,2), (3,4)} {} {(1,2), (3,4), (1,3)} {(5,1)} A -> B

27 Representing Sets of FD’s uIf each FD is a set of relation instances, then a collection of FD’s corresponds to the intersection of those sets. wIntersection = all instances that satisfy all of the FD’s.

28 Example A->B B->C CD->A Instances satisfying A->B, B->C, and CD->A

29 Implication of FD’s uIf an FD Y -> B follows from FD’s X 1 -> A 1,…, X n -> A n, then the region in the space of instances for Y -> B must include the intersection of the regions for the FD’s X i -> A i. wThat is, every instance satisfying all the FD’s X i -> A i surely satisfies Y -> B. wBut an instance could satisfy Y -> B, yet not be in this intersection.

30 Example A->B B->C A->C