Upload
amberly-wilson
View
235
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chapter 13
Normalization
2
Chapter 13 - Objectives
Purpose of normalization.
Problems associated with redundant data.
Identification of various types of update anomalies such as insertion, deletion, and modification anomalies.
How to recognize appropriateness or quality of the design of relations.
3
Chapter 13 - Objectives
How functional dependencies can be used to group attributes into relations that are in a known normal form.
How to undertake process of normalization.
How to identify most commonly used normal forms, namely 1NF, 2NF, 3NF, and Boyce–Codd normal form (BCNF).
How to identify fourth (4NF) and fifth (5NF) normal forms.
4
Recommended Reading
Chapter 13 of the text book Module 9 of the Study Book
– Available from the Course Website
5
Normalization
Main objective in developing a logical data model for relational database systems is to create an accurate representation of the data, its relationships, and constraints.
To achieve this objective, must identify a suitable set of relations.
6
From Conceptual Model to Logical Model
1. Analyse requirements 2. Draw up ERM diagram
– See chapters 11 & 123. Map ERM diagram to Relational Model
– See separate slides + Chapter 154. Normalize relations
– See chapter 135. Optimize relations
– ‘de-’normalize to gain performance– Not covered in this course
7
Normalization
Four most commonly used normal forms are first (1NF), second (2NF) and third (3NF) normal forms, and Boyce–Codd normal form (BCNF).
Based on functional dependencies among the attributes of a relation.
A relation can be normalized to a specific form to prevent possible occurrence of update anomalies.
8
Data Redundancy
Major aim of relational database design is to group attributes into relations to minimize data redundancy and reduce file storage space required by base relations.
Problems associated with data redundancy are illustrated by comparing the following Staff and Branch relations with the StaffBranch relation.
9
Data Redundancy
10
Data Redundancy
StaffBranch relation has redundant data: details of a branch are repeated for every member of staff.
In contrast, branch information appears only once for each branch in Branch relation and only branchNo is repeated in Staff relation, to represent where each member of staff works.
11
Update Anomalies
Relations that contain redundant information may potentially suffer from update anomalies.
Types of update anomalies include:– Insertion
» E.g. Adding branch without staff
– Deletion» E.g. Deleting Mary Howe
– Modification» E.g. Changing address of B003
12
Lossless-join and Dependency Preservation Properties
Two important properties of decomposition:
- Lossless-join property enables us to find any instance of original relation from corresponding instances in the smaller relations.
- Dependency preservation property enables us to enforce a constraint on original relation by enforcing some constraint on each of the smaller relations.
13
Section 1
Functional Dependencies
14
Functional Dependency (FD)
Main concept associated with normalization Formally related to concept of keys 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.
15
Functional Dependency
Property of the meaning (or semantics) of the attributes in a relation.
Diagrammatic representation:
Determinant of a functional dependency refers to attribute or group of attributes on left-hand side of the arrow.
16
Example - Functional Dependency
17
Functional Dependency
Main characteristics of functional dependencies used in normalization:
– have a 1:1 relationship between attribute(s) on left and right-hand side of a dependency;
– hold for all time;– are nontrivial
» Impossible not to be satisfied
» RHS is a subset of LHS
18
Closure of FDs
Complete set of functional dependencies for a given relation can be very large.
Important to find an approach that can reduce set to a manageable size.
Need to identify set of functional dependencies (X) for a relation that is smaller than complete set of functional dependencies (Y) for that relation and has property that every functional dependency in Y is implied by functional dependencies in X.
19
Closure of FDs
Set of all functional dependencies implied by a given set of functional dependencies X called closure of X (written X+).
Set of inference rules, called Armstrong’s axioms, specifies how new functional dependencies can be inferred from given ones.
These rules are both sound and complete Computing closure of a set of FDs is expensive
– Size of closure may be exponential in the number of attributes!
20
Armstrong’s Axioms
Let A, B, and C be subsets of the attributes of relation R. Armstrong’s axioms are as follows:
1. Reflexivity
If B is a subset of A, then A B
2. Augmentation
If A B, then AC C
3. Transitivity
If A B and B C, then A CFour other rules mentioned in Study Book can be derived from
Amstrong’s Axioms.
21
Attribute Closure
Typically want to check if given FD X Y is in F+
– To check if X is a candidate key for relation R– (Also need to check if X is minimal)
X+ is called closure of attribs X under F– Defined as the set of attribs functionally determined by X
under F– X Y is in F+ iff Y X+
Example– Is AG a candidate key for R(A,B,C,G,H,I) under set of FDs
F = {A B, A C, CG H, CG I, B H} ?– Compute AG+ using algorithm in StudyBook– Check to see if AG is minimal (compute A+ and G+)
22
Minimal Covers
Minimal Sets of FDs– Set of all FDs for a relation can be large– Reduce number of FDs by eliminating redundancies
– Textbook gives different definition than StudyBook» Both amount to the same concept
Unfortunately there can be several minimal covers
23
Minimal Covers
Textbook definition:– A set of FDs Y is covered by a set of FDs X if every
FD in Y is in X+
– X is minimal set of FDs if:» Every FD in X has a single attribute on its RHS
» A B cannot be replaced by C B with C A without losing equivalence
» Not possible to remove a FD in X without losing equivalence
– A minimal cover for X is a minimal set of FDs Xmin that is equivalent to X
24
Summary
Relation R yields set of FDs F– Possible to compute closure F+
» Includes all FDs derivable from F, needed for BCNF
– Possible to compute attribute closure of X under F» Useful to identify candidate keys
– Possible to compute minimal cover FM
» Excludes redundancies, needed for 3NF
Relationship between F, F+, and FM:
– F F+ and F FM+, but not FM F
Examples on next 7 slides are from Study Book
25
Examples – (a) functional dependencies
staffNo sName, position, salary, branchNo, bAddress {PK} branchNo bAddress bAddress branchNo branchNo, position salary bAddress, position salary
26
Functional Dependencies
Three methods to identify FDs for a relation:– Create adequate test data
» populate the relation with several tuples (rows), inserting all possible data combinations, while identifying which combinations should not be valid
– Reason about the relation itself » look for rules (also called predicates)
– Translate any given assumptions about the data
27
Functional Dependencies
Diagrammatic notation:
28
Examples – (b) closure of set of FDs
Given R(A,B,C,G,H,I) and F = {A B, A C, CG H, CG I, B H}
Compute F+ using Amstrong’s Axioms:
– A H (since A B and B H) (Transitivity)
– CG CG H and CG I(Union)
– AG AG CG and CG I(Aug+trans)
– … Can be very large Needed for BCNF definition
29
Examples – (c) attribute closure
Given R(A,B,C,G,H,I) and F = {A B, A C, CG H, CG I, B H}
Is AG a candidate key for R? Calculate AG+: (ref. algorithm in StudyBook)
– Result := AG
– Result := AGB (A B and A result(AG) )
– Result := AGBC (A C and A AGB )
– Result := AGBCH (B H and B result(AGBC) )
– Result := AGBCHI (CG I and CG result(AGBCH) ) Thus, AG is at least a super key; if minimal, also a candidate key Calculate A+ and G+ separately in the same manner
30
Examples – (d) minimal set of FDs
Given R(A,B,C) and F = {A BC, B C, A B, AB C} Compute FM (ref. algorithm in StudyBook)
Merge all FDs with the same LHS in F: A BC (A B is merged)
AB C contains extra attrib A in LHS since B CF – {AB C} {B C} = {A BC, B C}
C is extra attrib in RHS of A BC since B CF – {A BC} {A B} = {A B, B C}
1. Thus, FM = {A B, B C}
31
Examples – (e) finding candidate keys (1/2)
Given R(A,B,C,D,E) and F = {A B, BC E, ED A} Step 1: find super keys
– A) check whether determinants are super keys» A+ = AB BC+ = BCE ED+ = ABED (No)
– B) create super keys using F» (R – A+) A = ACDE is a super key for R
» (R – BC+) BC = ABCD is a super key for R
» (R – ED+) ED = CDE is a super key for R
Step 2: find candidate keys
– For each super key, try minimalizing
– Compute attrib. closure of all subsets, test equality with R
– Example: super key ACDE, take all subsets
32
Examples – (e) finding candidate keys (2/2)
Super key ACDE, check subsets:» AC+ = ABCE not R
» AD+ = ABD not R
» AE+ = ABE not R
» CD+ = CD not R
» CE+ = CE not R
» DE+ = ABDE not R
» ACD+ = ABCDE candidate key
» ACE+ = ABCE not R
» CDE+ = ABCDE candidate key
» ADE+ = ABDE not R
Need to do the same for the 2 other super keys All candidate keys for R: ACD, CDE, and BCD
33
Section 2
Normalization
34
The Process of Normalization
Formal technique for analyzing (decomposing) a relation based on its primary key and functional dependencies between its attributes.
Often executed as a series of steps. Each step corresponds to a specific normal form, which has known properties.
As normalization proceeds, relations become progressively more restricted (stronger) in format and also less vulnerable to update anomalies.
35
Relationship Between Normal Forms
36
Three methods, increasing difficulty
– Text Book approach» Up to 3NF, based on primary key only
» BCNF based on all candidate keys for a relation
» Will be assessed
– Text Book General Definitions for 2NF, 3NF» Based on all candidate keys for a relation
» Catches some extra update anomalies
» May be assessed
– Study Book extra information» Based on all candidate keys for a relation
» Formal algorithms using F+ and FM
» Will not be assessed
37
Unnormalized Form (UNF)
A table that contains one or more repeating groups.– Multiple values for a group of attribs per tuple,
given a primary key
To create an unnormalized table: – transform data from information source
(e.g. form) into table format with columns and rows.
38
First Normal Form (1NF)
A relation in which the intersection of each row and column contains one and only one value.– Cfr. ‘multi-valued’ attributes in E-ER Model
39
UNF to 1NF
Nominate an attribute or group of attributes to act as the key for the unnormalized table.
Identify repeating group(s) in unnormalized table which repeats for the key attribute(s).
40
UNF to 1NF
Remove repeating group by:– entering appropriate data into the empty
columns of rows containing repeating data (‘flattening’ the table).
Or by– placing repeating data along with copy of the
original key attribute(s) into a separate relation Both approaches induce 1NF, but update anomalies
are still very likely
41
UNF to 1NF: example First approach
CR76 John Kay PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
PG16 5 Novar Dr CO93 T. Shaw
CR56 A. Stewart PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
PG36 2 Manor D CO93 T. Shaw
CR76 John Kay PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
CR76 John Kay PG16 5 Novar Dr CO93 T. Shaw
CR56 A. Stewart PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
CR56 A. Stewart PG36 2 Manor D CO93 T. Shaw
UNF
1NF
42
UNF to 1NF: example Second approach
CR76 John Kay
CR56 A. Stewart
CR76 John Kay PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
CR76 John Kay PG16 5 Novar Dr CO93 T. Shaw
CR56 A. Stewart PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
CR56 A. Stewart PG36 2 Manor D CO93 T. Shaw
1NF
43
Second Normal Form (2NF)
Based on concept of full functional dependency:– A and B are (groups of) attributes of a relation, – B is fully dependent on A if B is functionally
dependent on A but not on any proper subset of A.
2NF - A relation that is in 1NF and every non-primary-key attribute is fully functionally dependent on the primary key.
44
1NF to 2NF
Identify primary key for the 1NF relation.
Identify functional dependencies in the relation.
If partial dependencies exist on the primary key remove them by placing them in a new relation along with copy of their determinant.
45
1NF to 2NF: example
CR76 John Kay PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
CR76 John Kay PG16 5 Novar Dr CO93 T. Shaw
CR56 A. Stewart PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
CR56 A. Stewart PG36 2 Manor D CO93 T. Shaw
1NF
Fd1 {PK}
Fd2 Partial dependency on PK
Fd3 Partial dependency on PK
2NF
Client(clientNo, cName)Prop(propNo, pAdd, pOwnNo, pOwnName)PropRent(clientNo, propNo)
46
Third Normal Form (3NF)
Based on concept of transitive dependency:– A, B and C are (groups of) attributes of a relation such that
if A B and B C,
– then C is transitively dependent on A through B. (Provided that A is not functionally dependent on B or C).
3NF - A relation that is in 1NF and 2NF and in which no non-primary-key attribute is transitively dependent on the primary key.
47
2NF to 3NF
Identify the primary key in the 2NF relation.
Identify functional dependencies in the relation.
If transitive dependencies exist on the primary key remove them by placing them in a new relation along with copy of their determinant.
48
2NF to 3NF: example
PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
PG16 5 Novar Dr CO93 T. Shaw
PG4 6 Lawrence CO40 T. Murphy
PG36 2 Manor D CO93 T. Shaw
2NF
Fd1 {PK}
Fd2 transitive dependency on PK
3NF
Client(clientNo, cName)Prop(propNo, pAdd, pOwnNo)Owner(pOwnNo, pOwnName)PropRent(clientNo, propNo)
49
General Definitions of 2NF and 3NF
Previous definitions are only an approximation
Second normal form (2NF)– A relation that is in 1NF and every non-primary-
key attribute is fully functionally dependent on any candidate key.
Third normal form (3NF)– A relation that is in 1NF and 2NF and in which no
non-primary-key attribute is transitively dependent on any candidate key.
50
Boyce–Codd Normal Form (BCNF)
Based on functional dependencies that take into account all candidate keys in a relation, however BCNF also has additional constraints compared with general definition of 3NF.
BCNF - A relation is in BCNF if and only if every determinant is a candidate key.
51
Boyce–Codd normal form (BCNF)
Difference between 3NF and BCNF is that for a functional dependency A B, 3NF allows this dependency in a relation if B is a primary-key attribute and A is not a candidate key.
Whereas, BCNF insists that for this dependency to remain in a relation, A must be a candidate key.
Every relation in BCNF is also in 3NF. However, relation in 3NF may not be in BCNF.
52
Boyce–Codd normal form (BCNF)
Violation of BCNF is quite rare.
Potential to violate BCNF may occur in a relation that:– contains two (or more) composite candidate
keys;– the candidate keys overlap (ie. have at least
one attribute in common).
53
Example BCNF Violation
clientNo interviewDate interviewTime staffNo roomNo
CR76 13 May 02 10.30 SG5 G101
CR56 13 May 02 12.00 SG5 G101
CR74 13 May 02 12.00 SG37 G102
CR56 1 July 02 10.30 SG5 G103
fd1 PK
fd2 CK
fd3 CK
fd4
Relation is in ‘simple 3NF’ (not in ‘general 3NF’)But not in BCNF since LHS of fd4 is not a candidate key
54
Problems with BCNF
3NF properties:– Always possible to decompose to 3NF
» Where decomposition is lossless, and» Dependencies are preserved
BCNF properties:– When decomposing to BCNF, dependencies may be
lost (e.g. fd3 in previous slide)
Stay at 3NF or go to BCNF?– 3NF: more redundancy– BCNF: loss of constraint
55
Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)
56
Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)
UNF
1NF
57
Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)
1NF
58
Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)
59
Review of Normalization (UNF to BCNF)
Resulting relational schema:– Property(propertyNo, pAddress)– Staff(staffNo, sName)– Inspection(propertyNo, iDate, iTime, comments,
staffNo)– StaffCar(staffNo, iDate, carReg)
Loss of fd5, since fd4 causes redundancy PK, FK mechanism can be used to compute lossless join
60
Fourth Normal Form (4NF)
Although BCNF removes anomalies due to functional dependencies, another type of dependency called a multi-valued dependency (MVD) can also cause data redundancy.
Possible existence of MVDs in a relation is due to 1NF and can result in data redundancy.
branchNo sName oName
B03 {Beech, Ford} {Farrel, Murphy}
61
Additional Normal Forms
4NF and 5NF These are optional w.r.t. the process of normalization
Assessment:– Concepts may be assessed– Normalization to 4NF and/or 5NF will not be
assessed
62
Fourth Normal Form (4NF) - MVD
MVD
– Dependency between attributes (for example, A, B, and C) in a relation,
– such that for each value of A there is a set of values for B and a set of values for C.
– However, set of values for B and C are independent of each other.
branchNo sName oName
B03 Beech Farrel
B03 Beech Murphy
B03 Ford Farrel
B03 Ford Murphy
63
Fourth Normal Form (4NF)
MVD between attributes A, B, and C in a relation using the following notation:
A B
A C
64
Fourth Normal Form (4NF)
MVD can be further defined as being trivial or nontrivial.
– MVD A B in relation R is defined as being trivial if (a) B is a subset of A or (b) A B = R.
– MVD is defined as being nontrivial if neither (a) nor (b) are satisfied.
– Trivial MVD does not specify a constraint on a relation, while a nontrivial MVD does specify a constraint.
65
Fourth Normal Form (4NF)
Defined as a relation that is in BCNF and contains no nontrivial MVDs.
Note that we must allow non-trivial MVDs that are in fact FDs
66
4NF - Example
BCNF
4NF
67
Fifth Normal Form (5NF)
A relation decomposed into two relations must have lossless-join property, which ensures that no spurious tuples are generated when relations are reunited through a natural join.
However, there are requirements to decompose a relation into more than two relations.
Although rare, these cases are managed by join dependency and fifth normal form (5NF).
68
Fifth Normal Form (5NF) A relation that has no (non-trivial) join dependency. Example of a JD
69
5NF - Example
PropItemSup(A,B,C) satisfies JD (R1(A,B), R2(B,C), R3(A,C))
Any join between two relations produces spurious tuplesJoin between the three produces legal state of PropItemSup