B.

Tech – IV Sem

Prepared by:

Priyank Dubey
 Unit -3
• RELATIONAL DATABASE DESIGN: Functional
Dependency , Normalization- Introduction, 1NF, 2NF,
3NF, Decomposition, Dependency Preservation , BCNF,
Mutivalued Dependancy, 4NF, Join Dependency and
5NF.
• QUERY PROCESSING: Query Evaluation, Operator
Evaluation, Query Optimization, Optimization Methods-
Heuristic Based, Cost Estimation based, Semantic Query
Optimization.
Relational Database Design
 Relational Database Design

• Features of Good Relational Design

• Atomic Domains and First Normal Form
• Decomposition Using Functional Dependencies
• Functional Dependency Theory
• Algorithms for Functional Dependencies
• Decomposition Using Multivalued Dependencies
• More Normal Form
• Database-Design Process
• Modeling Temporal Data
 Combine Schemas?
• Suppose we combine instructor and department into
inst_dept
– (No connection to relationship set inst_dept)
• Result is possible repetition of information
A Combined Schema Without Repetition

• Consider combining relations

– sec_class(sec_id, building, room_number) and
– section(course_id, sec_id, semester, year)
into one relation
– section(course_id, sec_id, semester, year,
building, room_number)
• No repetition in this case
 What About Smaller Schemas?
• Suppose we had started with inst_dept. How would we know to split
up (decompose) it into instructor and department?
• Write a rule “if there were a schema (dept_name, building, budget),
then dept_name would be a candidate key”
• Denote as a functional dependency:
dept_name  building, budget
• In inst_dept, because dept_name is not a candidate key, the building
and budget of a department may have to be repeated.
– This indicates the need to decompose inst_dept
• Not all decompositions are good. Suppose we decompose
employee(ID, name, street, city, salary) into
employee1 (ID, name)
employee2 (name, street, city, salary)
• The next slide shows how we lose information -- we cannot reconstruct
the original employee relation -- and so, this is a lossy decomposition.
A Lossy Decomposition
 Example of Lossless-Join Decomposition

• Lossless join decomposition

• Decomposition of R = (A, B, C)
R1 = (A, B) R2 = (B, C)

A B C A B B C
 1 A  1 1 A
 2 B  2 2 B
r A,B(r) B,C(r)

A B C
A (r) B (r)
 1 A
 2 B
 First Normal Form
• Domain is atomic if its elements are considered to be
indivisible units
– Examples of non-atomic domains:
• Set of names, composite attributes
• Identification numbers 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 and encourage
redundant (repeated) storage of data
– Example: Set of accounts stored with each customer, and set
of owners stored with each account
– We assume all relations are in first normal form (and revisit
this in Chapter 22: Object Based Databases)
 First Normal Form (Cont’d)

• Atomicity is actually a property of how the elements

of the domain are used.
– Example: Strings would normally be considered indivisible
– Suppose that students are given roll numbers which are
strings of the form CS0012 or EE1127
– If the first two characters are extracted to find the
department, the domain of roll numbers is not atomic.
– Doing so is a bad idea: leads to encoding of information in
application program rather than in the database.
 Goal — Devise a Theory for the Following

• 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 {R1,
R2, ..., Rn} such that
– each relation is in good form
– the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition
• Our theory is based on:
– functional dependencies
– multivalued dependencies
 Functional Dependencies

• 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.
• A functional dependency is a generalization of the
notion of a key.
 Functional Dependencies (Cont.)
• Let R be a relation schema
  R and   R
• The functional dependency

holds on R if and only if for any legal relations r(R), whenever any
two tuples t1 and t2 of r agree on the attributes , they also agree
on the attributes . That is,
t1[] = t2 []  t1[ ] = t2 [ ]
• Example: Consider r(A,B ) with the following instance of r.

1 4
1 5
3 7

• On this instance, A  B does NOT hold, but B  A does hold.

 Functional Dependencies (Cont.)
• 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:
inst_dept (ID, name, salary, dept_name, building, budget ).
We expect these functional dependencies to hold:
dept_name building
and ID  building
but would not expect the following to hold:
dept_name  salary
 Use of Functional Dependencies
• We use functional dependencies to:
– test relations to see if they are legal under a given set of
functional dependencies.
• If a relation r is legal under a set F of functional dependencies, we
say that r satisfies F.
– 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
functional dependencies F.
• Note: A specific instance of a relation schema may
satisfy a functional dependency even if the functional
dependency does not hold on all legal instances.
– For example, a specific instance of instructor may, by chance,
satisfy
name  ID.
 Functional Dependencies (Cont.)
• A functional dependency is trivial if it is satisfied by all
instances of a relation
– Example:
• ID, name  ID
• name  name
– In general,    is trivial if   
 Closure of a Set of Functional Dependencies

• Given a set F of functional dependencies,

there are certain other functional
dependencies that are logically implied by F.
– For example: If A  B and B  C, then we
can infer that A  C
• The set of all functional dependencies
logically implied by F is the closure of F.
• We denote the closure of F by F+.
• F+ is a superset of F.
 Boyce-Codd Normal Form
A relation schema R is in BCNF with respect to a set F of functional
dependencies if for all functional dependencies in F+ of the form

 

where   R and   R, at least one of the following holds:

•    is trivial (i.e.,   )
•  is a superkey for R
Example schema not in BCNF:

instr_dept (ID, name, salary, dept_name, building, budget )

because dept_name building, budget

holds on instr_dept, but dept_name is not a superkey
Decomposing a Schema into BCNF
• Suppose we have a schema R and a non-trivial
dependency  causes a violation of BCNF.
We decompose R into:
• (U  )
•(R-(-))
• In our example,
–  = dept_name
–  = building, budget
and inst_dept is replaced by
– (U  ) = ( dept_name, building, budget )
– ( R - (  -  ) ) = ( ID, name, salary, dept_name )
 BCNF and Dependency Preservation
• Constraints, including functional dependencies, are costly
to check in practice unless they pertain to only one relation
• If it is sufficient to test only those dependencies on each
individual relation of a decomposition in order to ensure
that all functional dependencies hold, then that
decomposition is dependency preserving.
• Because it is not always possible to achieve both BCNF and
dependency preservation, we consider a weaker normal
form, known as third normal form.
 Third Normal Form
• A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if for
all:
   in F+
at least one of the following holds:
–    is trivial (i.e.,   )
–  is a superkey for R
– Each attribute A in  –  is contained in a candidate key for R.
(NOTE: each attribute may be in a different candidate key)
• If a relation is in BCNF it is in 3NF (since in BCNF one of
the first two conditions above must hold).
• Third condition is a minimal relaxation of BCNF to ensure
dependency preservation (will see why later).
 Goals of Normalization

• Let R be a relation scheme with a set F of functional

dependencies.
• Decide whether a relation scheme R is in “good” form.
• In the case that a relation scheme R is not in “good”
form, decompose it into a set of relation scheme {R1,
R2, ..., Rn} such that
– each relation scheme is in good form
– the decomposition is a lossless-join decomposition
– Preferably, the decomposition should be dependency
preserving.
 How good is BCNF?
• There are database schemas in BCNF that do not seem to be
sufficiently normalized
• Consider a relation
inst_info (ID, child_name, phone)
– where an instructor may have more than one phone and can have multiple
children
ID child_name phone
512-555-1234
99999 David
512-555-4321
99999 David
512-555-1234
99999 William
512-555-4321
99999 Willian

inst_info
 How good is BCNF? (Cont.)

• There are no non-trivial functional dependencies and therefore the

relation is in BCNF
• Insertion anomalies – i.e., if we add a phone 981-992-3443 to 99999,
we need to add two tuples
(99999, David, 981-992-3443)
(99999, William, 981-992-3443)
 How good is BCNF? (Cont.)

• Therefore, it is better to decompose inst_info into:

ID child_name

inst_child 99999 David

99999 David
99999 William
99999 Willian

ID phone
512-555-1234
inst_phone 99999
512-555-4321
99999
512-555-1234
99999
512-555-4321
99999

This suggests the need for higher normal forms, such as Fourth
Normal Form (4NF), which we shall see later.
 Functional-Dependency Theory
• We now consider the formal theory that tells us which
functional dependencies are implied logically by a
given set of functional dependencies.
• We then develop algorithms to generate lossless
decompositions into BCNF and 3NF
• We then develop algorithms to test if a decomposition
is dependency-preserving
 Closure of a Set of Functional Dependencies

• Given a set F set of functional

dependencies, there are certain other
functional dependencies that are
logically implied by F.
– For e.g.: If A  B and B  C, then we can
infer that A  C
• The set of all functional dependencies
logically implied by F is the closure of F.
• We denote the closure of F by F+.
 Closure of a Set of Functional Dependencies

• We can find F+, the closure of F, by repeatedly

applying
Armstrong’s Axioms:
– if   , then    (reflexivity)
– if   , then      (augmentation)
– if   , and   , then    (transitivity)
• These rules are
– sound (generate only functional dependencies that
actually hold), and
– complete (generate all functional dependencies that
hold).
 Example

• R = (A, B, C, G, H, I)
F={ AB
AC
CG  H
CG  I
B  H}
• some members of F+
– AH
• by transitivity from A  B and B  H
– AG  I
• by augmenting A  C with G, to get AG  CG
and then transitivity with CG  I
– CG  HI
• by augmenting CG  I to infer CG  CGI,
and augmenting of CG  H to infer CGI  HI,
and then transitivity
 Procedure for Computing F+
• To compute the closure of a set of functional dependencies 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 f1and f2 in F +
if f1 and f2 can be combined using transitivity
then add the resulting functional dependency to F +
until F + does not change any further

NOTE: We shall see an alternative procedure for this task later

 Closure of Functional Dependencies (Cont.)

• Additional rules:
– If    holds and    holds, then   
 holds (union)
– If     holds, then    holds and  
 holds (decomposition)
– If    holds and     holds, then   
 holds (pseudotransitivity)
The above rules can be inferred from
Armstrong’s axioms.
 Closure of Attribute Sets
• Given a set of attributes a, define the closure of a under F (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) do
for each    in F do
begin
if   result then result := result  
end
 Example of Attribute Set Closure

• 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? == Is (AG)+  R
2. Is any subset of AG a superkey?
1. Does A  R? == Is (A)+  R
2. Does G  R? == Is (G)+  R
 Uses of Attribute Closure

There are several uses of the attribute closure algorithm:

• Testing for superkey:
– To test if  is a superkey, we compute +, and check if + contains all attributes of
R.
• Testing functional dependencies
– To check if a functional dependency    holds (or, in other words, is in F+), just
check if   +.
– That is, we compute + by using attribute closure, and then check if it contains .
– Is a simple and cheap test, and very useful
• Computing closure of F
– For each   R, we find the closure +, and for each S  +, we output a functional
dependency   S.
 Canonical Cover
• Sets of functional dependencies may have redundant
dependencies that can be inferred from the others
– For example: A  C is redundant in: {A  B, B  C, A C}
– Parts of a functional dependency may be redundant
• E.g.: on RHS: {A  B, B  C, A  CD} can be simplified to
{A  B, B  C, A  D}
• E.g.: on LHS: {A  B, B  C, AC  D} can be simplified to
{A  B, B  C, A  D}
• 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
 Extraneous Attributes
• 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 = {A  C, AB  C }
– B is extraneous in AB  C because {A  C, AB  C} logically implies A
 C (I.e. the result of dropping B from AB  C).
• Example: Given F = {A  C, AB  CD}
– C is extraneous in AB  CD since AB  C can be inferred even after
deleting C
 Testing if an Attribute is Extraneous

• Consider a set F of functional dependencies and the

functional dependency    in F.
• To test if attribute A   is extraneous in 
1. compute ({} – A) using the dependencies in F
+

2. check that ({} – A) contains ; if it does, A is extraneous in 

+

• To test if attribute A   is extraneous in 

1. compute  using only the dependencies in
+

F’ = (F – {  })  { ( – A)},

2. check that  contains A; if it does, A is extraneous in 
+
 Canonical Cover
• A canonical cover for F is a set of dependencies Fc such that
– F logically implies all dependencies in Fc, and
– Fc logically implies all dependencies in F, and
– No functional dependency in F contains an extraneous attribute, and
c

– Each left side of functional dependency in F is unique.

c

• To compute a canonical cover for F:

repeat
Use the union rule to replace any dependencies in F
1  1 and 1  2 with 1  1 2
Find a functional dependency    with an
extraneous attribute either in  or in 
/* Note: test for extraneous attributes done using Fc, not F*/
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
 Computing a Canonical Cover
• R = (A, B, C)
F = {A  BC
BC
AB
AB  C}
• Combine A  BC and A  B into A  BC
– Set is now {A  BC, B  C, AB  C}
• A is extraneous in AB  C
– Check if the result of deleting A from AB  C is implied by the other dependencies
• Yes: in fact, B  C is already present!
– Set is now {A  BC, B  C}
• C is extraneous in A  BC
– 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
• The canonical cover is: AB
BC
 Lossless-join Decomposition
• For the case of R = (R1, R2), we require that for all
possible relations r on schema R
r = R1 (r ) R2 (r )
• A decomposition of R into R1 and R2 is lossless join if
at least one of the following dependencies is in F :+

– R 1  R2  R1
– R 1  R2  R2
• The above functional dependencies are a sufficient
condition for lossless join decomposition; the
dependencies are a necessary condition only if all
constraints are functional dependencies
 Example
• R = (A, B, C)
F = {A  B, B  C)
– Can be decomposed in two different ways
• R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
– Lossless-join decomposition:
R1  R2 = {B} and B  BC
– Dependency preserving
• R1 = (A, B), R2 = (A, C)
– Lossless-join decomposition:
R1  R2 = {A} and A  AB
– Not dependency preserving
(cannot check B  C without computing R1 R 2)
 Dependency Preservation

• Let Fi be the set of dependencies F +

that include only attributes in Ri.

• A decomposition is dependency
preserving, if
(F1  F2  …  Fn )+ = F +
• If it is not, then checking updates for
violation of functional dependencies may
require computing joins, which is
expensive.
 Testing for Dependency Preservation

• To check if a dependency    is preserved in a

decomposition of R into R , R , …, R we apply the following
1 2 n

test (with attribute closure done with respect to F)

– result = 
while (changes to result) do
for each Ri in the decomposition
t = (result  Ri)+  Ri
result = result  t
– If result contains all attributes in , then the functional
dependency
   is preserved.
• We apply the test on all dependencies in F to check if a
decomposition is dependency preserving
• This procedure takes polynomial time, instead of the
exponential time required to compute F+ and (F1  F2  …  Fn) +
 Example
• R = (A, B, C )
F = {A  B
B  C}
Key = {A}
• R is not in BCNF
• Decomposition R1 = (A, B), R2 = (B, C)
– R1 and R2 in BCNF
– Lossless-join decomposition
– Dependency preserving
 Testing for BCNF

• To check if a non-trivial dependency  causes a violation of

BCNF
1. compute + (the attribute closure of ), and
2. verify that it includes all attributes of R, that is, it is a superkey of R.
• Simplified test: To check if a relation schema R is in BCNF, it
suffices to check only the dependencies in the given set F for
violation of BCNF, rather than checking all dependencies in F+.
– If none of the dependencies in F causes a violation of BCNF, then none
of the dependencies in F+ will cause a violation of BCNF either.
• However, simplified test using only F is incorrect when testing a
relation in a decomposition of R
– Consider R = (A, B, C, D, E), with F = { A  B, BC  D}
• Decompose R into R1 = (A,B) and R2 = (A,C,D, E)
• Neither of the dependencies in F contain only attributes from
(A,C,D,E) so we might be mislead into thinking R2 satisfies BCNF.
• In fact, dependency AC  D in F+ shows R2 is not in BCNF.
 Testing Decomposition for BCNF
• To check if a relation Ri in a decomposition of R is in
BCNF,
– Either test Ri for BCNF with respect to the restriction of F to
Ri (that is, all FDs in F+ that contain only attributes from Ri)
– or use the original set of dependencies F that hold on R, but
with the following test:
– for every set of attributes   Ri, check that + (the attribute closure of
) either includes no attribute of Ri- , or includes all attributes of Ri.
• If the condition is violated by some   in F, the dependency
 (+ - )  Ri
can be shown to hold on Ri, and Ri violates BCNF.
• We use above dependency to decompose Ri
 BCNF Decomposition Algorithm

result := {R };
done := false;
compute F +;
while (not done) do
if (there is a schema Ri in result that is not in BCNF)
then begin
let    be a nontrivial functional dependency that
holds on Ri such that   Ri is not in F +,
and    = ;
result := (result – Ri )  (Ri – )  (,  );
end
else done := true;

Note: each Ri is in BCNF, and decomposition is lossless-join .

 Example of BCNF Decomposition
• R = (A, B, C )
F = {A  B
B  C}
Key = {A}
• R is not in BCNF (B  C but B is not
superkey)
• Decomposition
– R1 = (B, C)
– R2 = (A,B)
 Example of BCNF Decomposition

• class (course_id, title, dept_name, credits, sec_id, semester,

year, building, room_number, capacity, time_slot_id)
• Functional dependencies:
– course_id→ title, dept_name, credits
– building, room_number→capacity
– course_id, sec_id, semester, year→building, room_number,
time_slot_id
• A candidate key {course_id, sec_id, semester, year}.
• BCNF Decomposition:
– course_id→ title, dept_name, credits holds
• but course_id is not a superkey.
– We replace class by:
• course(course_id, title, dept_name, credits)
• class-1 (course_id, sec_id, semester, year, building,
room_number, capacity, time_slot_id)
 BCNF Decomposition (Cont.)
• course is in BCNF
– How do we know this?
• building, room_number→capacity holds on class-1
– but {building, room_number} is not a superkey for class-1.
– We replace class-1 by:
• classroom (building, room_number, capacity)
• section (course_id, sec_id, semester, year, building, room_number,
time_slot_id)
• classroom and section are in BCNF.
 BCNF and Dependency Preservation

It is not always possible to get a BCNF decomposition that is

dependency preserving

• R = (J, K, L )
F = {JK  L
LK}
Two candidate keys = JK and JL
• R is not in BCNF
• Any decomposition of R will fail to preserve
JK  L
This implies that testing for JK  L requires
a join
 Third Normal Form: Motivation
• There are some situations where
– BCNF is not dependency preserving, and
– efficient checking for FD violation on updates is
important
• Solution: define a weaker normal form, called Third
Normal Form (3NF)
– Allows some redundancy (with resultant problems; we
will see examples later)
– But functional dependencies can be checked on
individual relations without computing a join.
– There is always a lossless-join, dependency-preserving
decomposition into 3NF.
 3NF Example

• Relation dept_advisor:
– dept_advisor (s_ID, i_ID, dept_name)
F = {s_ID, dept_name  i_ID, i_ID  dept_name}
– Two candidate keys: s_ID, dept_name, and i_ID, s_ID
– R is in 3NF
• s_ID, dept_name  i_ID s_ID
– dept_name is a superkey
• i_ID  dept_name
– dept_name is contained in a candidate key
 Redundancy in 3NF

• There is some redundancy in this

schema
J L K
• Example of problems
j
due
l k
to 1 1 1

redundancy in 3NF j l k 2 1 1

j3 l1 k1
– R = (J, K, L) null l2 k2
F = {JK  L, L  K }
 repetition of information (e.g., the relationship l1, k1)
 (i_ID, dept_name)
 need to use null values (e.g., to represent the relationship
l2, k2 where there is no corresponding value for J).
 (i_ID, dept_nameI) if there is no separate relation mapping
instructors to departments
 Testing for 3NF
• Optimization: Need to check only FDs in F, need not check all FDs
in F+.
• Use attribute closure to check for each dependency   , if  is a
superkey.
• If  is not a superkey, we have to verify if each attribute in  is
contained in a candidate key of R
– this test is rather more expensive, since it involve finding candidate keys
– testing for 3NF has been shown to be NP-hard
– Interestingly, decomposition into third normal form (described shortly)
can be done in polynomial time
 3NF Decomposition Algorithm
Let F be a canonical cover for F;
c

i := 0;
for each functional dependency    in F do c

if none of the schemas Rj, 1  j  i contains  

then begin
i := i + 1;
Ri :=  
end
if none of the schemas R , 1  j  i contains a candidate key for R
j

then begin
i := i + 1;
R := any candidate key for R;
i

end
/* Optionally, remove redundant relations */
repeat
if any schema Rj is contained in another schema R k

then /* delete Rj */
Rj = R;;
i=i-1;
return (R , R , ..., R )
1 2 i
 3NF Decomposition Algorithm (Cont.)

• Above algorithm ensures:

– each relation schema Ri is in 3NF
– decomposition is dependency preserving and lossless-join
– Proof of correctness is at end of this presentation (click
here)
 3NF Decomposition: An Example
• Relation schema:
cust_banker_branch = (customer_id, employee_id, branch_name,
type )
• The functional dependencies for this relation schema are:
1. customer_id, employee_id  branch_name, type
2. employee_id  branch_name
3. customer_id, branch_name  employee_id
• We first compute a canonical cover
– branch_name is extraneous in the r.h.s. of the 1st dependency
– No other attribute is extraneous, so we get FC =
customer_id, employee_id  type
employee_id  branch_name
customer_id, branch_name  employee_id
 3NF Decompsition Example (Cont.)

• The for loop generates following 3NF schema:

(customer_id, employee_id, type )
(employee_id, branch_name)
(customer_id, branch_name, employee_id)
– Observe that (customer_id, employee_id, type ) contains a
candidate key of the original schema, so no further relation
schema needs be added
• At end of for loop, detect and delete schemas, such as
(employee_id, branch_name), which are subsets of other
schemas
– result will not depend on the order in which FDs are considered
• The resultant simplified 3NF schema is:
(customer_id, employee_id, type)
(customer_id, branch_name, employee_id)
 Comparison of BCNF and 3NF
• It is always possible to decompose a relation into a set
of relations that are in 3NF such that:
– the decomposition is lossless
– the dependencies are preserved
• It is always possible to decompose a relation into a set
of relations that are in BCNF such that:
– the decomposition is lossless
– it may not be possible to preserve dependencies.
 Design Goals
• Goal for a relational database design is:
– BCNF.
– Lossless join.
– Dependency preservation.
• If we cannot achieve this, we accept one of
– Lack of dependency preservation
– Redundancy due to use of 3NF
• Interestingly, SQL does not provide a direct way of specifying
functional dependencies other than superkeys.
Can specify FDs using assertions, but they are expensive to test,
(and currently not supported by any of the widely used databases!)
• Even if we had a dependency preserving decomposition, using SQL
we would not be able to efficiently test a functional dependency
whose left hand side is not a key.
 Multivalued Dependencies
• Suppose we record names of children, and phone numbers for instructors:
– inst_child(ID, child_name)
– inst_phone(ID, phone_number)
• If we were to combine these schemas to get
– inst_info(ID, child_name, phone_number)
– Example data:
(99999, David, 512-555-1234)
(99999, David, 512-555-4321)
(99999, William, 512-555-1234)
(99999, William, 512-555-4321)
• This relation is in BCNF
– Why?
Multivalued Dependencies (MVDs)
• Let R be a relation schema and let   R and   R. The
multivalued dependency
  
holds on R if in any legal relation r(R), for all pairs for tuples t1
and t2 in r such that t1[] = t2 [], there exist tuples t3 and t4 in r
such that:
t1[] = t2 [] = t3 [] = t4 []
t3[] = t1 []
t3[R – ] = t2[R – ]
t4 [] = t2[]
t4[R – ] = t1[R – ]
 MVD (Cont.)
• Tabular representation of   
 Example
• Let R be a relation schema with a set of attributes that are partitioned
into 3 nonempty subsets.
Y, Z, W
• We say that Y  Z (Y multidetermines Z )
if and only if for all possible relations r (R )
< y1, z1, w1 >  r and < y1, z2, w2 >  r
then
< y1, z1, w2 >  r and < y1, z2, w1 >  r
• Note that since the behavior of Z and W are identical it follows that
Y  Z if Y  W
 Example (Cont.)

• In our example:
ID  child_name
ID  phone_number
• The above formal definition is supposed to formalize the
notion that given a particular value of Y (ID) it has
associated with it a set of values of Z (child_name) and a
set of values of W (phone_number), and these two sets
are in some sense independent of each other.
• Note:
– If Y  Z then Y  Z
– Indeed we have (in above notation) Z1 = Z2
The claim follows.
 Use of Multivalued Dependencies

• We use multivalued dependencies in two ways:

1. To test relations to determine whether they are legal
under a given set of functional and multivalued
dependencies
2. To specify constraints on the set of legal relations. We
shall thus concern ourselves only with relations that satisfy
a given set of functional and multivalued dependencies.
• If a relation r fails to satisfy a given multivalued
dependency, we can construct a relations r that does
satisfy the multivalued dependency by adding tuples to
r.
 Theory of MVDs

• From the definition of multivalued dependency, we can

derive the following rule:
– If   , then   
That is, every functional dependency is also a multivalued
dependency
• The closure D+ of D is the set of all functional and
multivalued dependencies logically implied by D.
– We can compute D+ from D, using the formal definitions of
functional dependencies and multivalued dependencies.
– We can manage with such reasoning for very simple multivalued
dependencies, which seem to be most common in practice
– For complex dependencies, it is better to reason about sets of
dependencies using a system of inference rules (see Appendix C).
 Fourth Normal Form

• A relation schema R is in 4NF with respect

to a set D of functional and multivalued
dependencies if for all multivalued
dependencies in D+ of the form   ,
where   R and   R, at least one of
the following hold:
–    is trivial (i.e.,    or    = R)
–  is a superkey for schema R
• If a relation is in 4NF it is in BCNF
Restriction of Multivalued Dependencies

• The restriction of D to Ri is the set Di consisting of

– All functional dependencies in D+ that include only
attributes of Ri
– All multivalued dependencies of the form
  (  Ri)
where   Ri and    is in D+
4. Join Dependencies and Fifth Normal Form (1)

Definition:
• A join dependency (JD), denoted by JD(R1, R2, ..., Rn),
specified on relation schema R, specifies a constraint on the
states r of R.
– The constraint states that every legal state r of R should have a
non-additive join decomposition into R1, R2, ..., Rn; that is, for
every such r we have
– * (R1(r), R2(r), ..., Rn(r)) = r
Note: an MVD is a special case of a JD where n = 2.
• A join dependency JD(R1, R2, ..., Rn), specified on relation
schema R, is a trivial JD if one of the relation schemas Ri in
JD(R1, R2, ..., Rn) is equal to R.
Slide 11- 72
Join Dependencies and Fifth Normal Form (2)

Definition:
• A relation schema R is in fifth normal form
(5NF) (or Project-Join Normal Form (PJNF))
with respect to a set F of functional,
multivalued, and join dependencies if,
– for every nontrivial join dependency JD(R1, R2, ...,
Rn) in F+ (that is, implied by F),
• every Ri is a superkey of R.

Slide 11- 73
Relation SUPPLY with Join Dependency and conversion to
Fifth Normal Form

Slide 11- 74
 Query Optimization
• Query: A query is a request for information from
a database.
• Query Plans: A query plan (or query execution
plan) is an ordered set of steps used to access
data in a SQL relational database management
system.
• Query Optimization: A single query can be executed
through different algorithms or re-written in different
forms and structures.
There are broadly two ways a
query can be optimized:

1. Analyze and transform equivalent relational expressions:

Try to minimize the tuple and column counts of the
intermediate and final query processes.
2. Using different algorithms for each operation: These
underlying algorithms determine how tuples are accessed from
the data structures they are stored in, indexing, hashing, data
retrieval and hence influence the number of disk and block
accesses.
Various query optimization strategies

• Use Index − It can be using an index is the first strategy one should use to speed
up a query.
• Aggregate Table − It can be used to pre-populating tables at higher levels so less
amount of information is required to be parsed.
• Vertical Partitioning − It can be used to partition the table by columns. This
method reduces the amount of information a SQL query required to process.
• Horizontal Partitioning − It can be used to partition the table by data value, most
often time. This method reduces the amount of information a SQL query required to
process.
• De-normalization − The process of de-normalization combines multiple tables into
a single table. This speeds up query implementation because fewer table joins are
required.
• Server Tuning − Each server has its parameters and provides tuning server
parameters so that it can completely take benefit of the hardware resources that
can significantly speed up query implementation.
Cost Based Optimization with Equivalence Rules

• Physical equivalence rules allow logical query plan to be

converted to physical query plan specifying what algorithms are
used for each operation.
• Efficient optimizer based on equivalent rules depends on
– A space efficient representation of expressions which avoids making
multiple copies of subexpressions
– Efficient techniques for detecting duplicate derivations of expressions
– A form of dynamic programming based on memoization, which stores the
best plan for a subexpression the first time it is optimized, and reuses in on
repeated optimization calls on same subexpression
– Cost-based pruning techniques that avoid generating all plans
• Pioneered by the Volcano project and implemented in the SQL
Server optimizer
Heuristic Optimization
• Cost-based optimization is expensive, even with dynamic
programming.
• Systems may use heuristics to reduce the number of choices that
must be made in a cost-based fashion.
• Heuristic optimization transforms the query-tree by using a set of
rules that typically (but not in all cases) improve execution
performance:
– Perform selection early (reduces the number of tuples)
– Perform projection early (reduces the number of attributes)
– Perform most restrictive selection and join operations (i.e., with smallest result size)
before other similar operations.
– Some systems use only heuristics, others combine heuristics with partial cost-based
optimization.
Semantic Query Optimization
• A different approach to query optimization,
called semantic query optimization, has been
suggested. This technique, which may be used in
combination with the other techniques, uses constraints
specified on the database schema—such as unique
attributes and other more complex constraints—in
order to modify one query into another query that is
more efficient to execute.
Thank you!!