Module 3
First Normal Form
• Defi ned to disallow multivalued attributes,
composite attributes, a n d their combinations
It states that the domain of a n attribute must
include only atomic (simple, indivisible) values a n d
that the value of any attribute in a tuple must b e
a single value from the domain of that attribute
1NF disallows relations within relations or relations
as attribute values within tuples
The only attribute values permitted by
1NF are single
• atomic (or indivisible) values.
• Consider the DEPARTMENT relation schema shown in
Figure below
Primary key is Dnum ber
We assume that e a c h department c a n h a v e a number of
locations
The DEPARTMENT s ch em a a n d a sample relation state are
shown in Figure below
As w e c a n see, this is no t in 1NF b e c a use Dlo c a tio ns is no t
an atomi c attribute, as illustrated by the first tuple in Figure
There are two ways w e c a n look at the Dlocations attribute:
• The domain of Dlocations contains atomic values, but
some tuples c a n have a set of these values. In this case,
Dlocations is not functionally dependent on the
primary key Dnumber
• The domain of Dlocations contains sets of values a n d
h e n c e is nonatomic. In this case, Dnumber→Dlocations
because e a c h set is considered a single member of the
attribute domain
In either case, the DEPARTMENT relation is not in 1NF
There are three main techniques to ach i ev e first normal form for such a
relation:
1. Remove the attribute Dlocations that violates 1NF a n d p l a c e it in a
separate relation DEPT_LOCATIONS along with the primary key
Dnumber of DEPARTMENT. The primary key of this relation is the
combination {Dnumber, Dlocation}. A distinct tuple in
DEPT_LOCATIONS exists for each location of a department. This
decomposes the non-1NF relation into two 1NF relations.
2. Expand the key so that there will b e a separate tuple
in the original DEPARTMENT relation for e a c h location of a
DEPARTMENT. In this case, the primary key b e c o m e s the combination
{Dnumber, Dlocation}. This solution has the disadvantage of
introducing redundancy in the relation
3. If a maximum number of values is known for the attribute—for
example, if it is known that at most three locations c a n exist for a
department— r e p l a c e the Dlocations attribute b y three atomic
attributes: Dlocation1, Dlocation2, a n d Dlocation3. This solution has the
disad van ta ge of introducing NULL values if most departments h a v e
fewer than three locations. Querying on this attribute b e c o m es m o re
d iffic ult;
• Of the three solutions, the first is generally considered best b e c a u s e it
does not suffer from redundancy a n d it is completely general, having
no limit p l a c e d on a maximum number of values
Second Normal Form
Second normal form (2NF) is b a s e d on the c o n c e p t of full
functional d e p e n d e n c y
A functional d e p e n d e n c y X → Y is a full functional
dependency if removal of a n y attribute A from X means
that the d e p e n d e n c y does not hold a n y more; that is,
for an y attribute A ε X, (X – {A}) does not functionally
determine Y
A functional d e p e n d e n c y X→Y is a partial dependency
if some attribute A ε X c a n b e removed from X a n d the
d e p e n d e n c y still holds; that is, for some A ε X, (X – {A}) → Y
Inthe a b ove figure , {Ssn, Pnum ber} →
Hours is a full dependency (neither Ssn → Hours nor
Pnumber→Hours holds)
{Ssn, Pnumber}→Ename is partial because Ssn→Ename holds
•Definition. A relation schema R is in 2NF if every nonprime
attribute A in R is fully functionally dependent on the primary
key of R
The test for 2NF involves testing for functional dependencies
whose left-hand side attributes are part of the primary key
If the primary key contains a single attribute, the test n e e d not b e
applied at all
The EM P_PRO J rela tio n is in 1NF b ut is no t in 2NF.
The nonprime attribute Ename violates 2NF bec a use of FD2, as d o
the nonprime attributes Pname a n d Plocation be c a use of FD3
The func tio nal d e p enden c ies FD2 and
FD3 m a ke Enam e , Pname, and Plocation partially
dependent on the primary key
• {Ssn, Pnumber} of EMP_PROJ, thus violating the 2NF test.
If a relation schema is not in 2NF, it c a n b e second normalized.
Relation R can be decomposed into 2NF
Therefore, the functional dependencies FD1, FD2, a n d FD3
lead to the decomposition of EMP_PROJ into the three
relation schemas EP1,
• EP2, a n d EP3 shown in Figure below, e a c h of which is in
2NF.
Third Normal Form
Transitive functional dependency: A functional d e p e n d e n c y X→Y in a
relation schema R is a transitive dependency if there exists a set of
attribute Z that are neither a primary nor a subset of any key of
R(candidate key) a n d both X Z a n d Z Y holds
Example:
🠶 SSN DMGRSSN is a transitive FD sinc e
SSN DNUMBER a n d DNUMBER DMGRSSN hold Dnumber is
neither a key itself nor a subset of the key of EMP_DEPT
🠶 SSN ENAME is non-transitive sinc e there is no set o f a ttrib utes X
where SSN X a n d X ENAME
Definition: A relation schema R is in third normal form (3NF) if it is in 2NF and
no non-prime attribute A in R is transitively dependent on the primary key.
The relation sch em a EMP_DEPT is in 2NF, since no partial
d ep en d en cies on a key exist. However, EMP_DEPT is not in 3NF
b e c a u s e of the transitive d e p e n d e n c y of Dmgr_ssn (and also
Dname) on Ssn via Dnumber
We c a n normalize EMP_DEPT by decomposing it into the two
3NF relation schemas ED1 a n d ED2
General Definition of Second and Third Normal Form
• Takes into a c c o u n t all c a n d i d a t e keys of a relation into
account
Definition of 2NF: A relation s c h e m a R is in second normal form
(2NF) if every nonprime attribute A in R is not partially
d e p e n d e n t on any key of R
•Definition: A relation schema R is in 2NF if every nonprime attribute A
in R is fully functionally dependent on the primary key of R
• Consid er the relatio n sc hem a LOTS whic h desc rib es
parcels of land for sale in various counties of a state
• Suppose there are two candidate keys: Property_id# and
{country_name, Lot#}, that is Lot# are unique within each
county but property_id# are unique across countries for the
entire state
Based on the two candidate keys Property_id#
a n d {County_name, Lot#}, the functional dependencies FD1
a n d FD2 hold
🠶 FD1: Prop erty_id → { C ounty_na me,Lot#,Area,Pric e ,Ta x_rate }
🠶 FD2:{County_name,Lot#} →{Property_id, Area,Price,Tax_rate}
🠶 FD3: County_name → Tax_rate
🠶 FD4: Area → Price
We choose Property_id# as the primary key, but no special
consideration will b e given to this key over the other
candidate key
FD3 says that the tax rate is fixed for a given county (does not
vary lot by lot within the same county)
FD4 says tha t the p ric e of a lot is
d e termine d by its a rea regardless of whic h c ounty it is in.
The LOTS relation schema violates the general definition of 2NF
b e c a use Ta x_rate is pa rtia lly d e p enden t on the c a ndid a te key
{County_name, Lot#}, due to FD3
To normalize LOTS into 2NF, w e d e c o m p o s e it into the two relations
LOTS1 a n d LOTS2
We construct LOTS1 by removing the attribute Tax_rate that violates
2NF from LOTS a n d placing it with County_name (the left- h an d side
of
FD3 that causes the partial dependency) into another relation
LOTS2.
Both LOTS1 a n d LOTS2 are in 2NF.
Definition of 3NF: A relation s c h e m a R is in third normal form (3NF) if,
whenever a nontrivial functional d e p e n d e n c y X→A holds in R,
either (a) X is a superkey of R, or (b) A is a prime attribute of R
A c c ording to this d e finition, LOTS2 is in 3NF
FD4 in LOTS1 violates 3NF b e c a u s e Area is not a superkey a n d
Price is not a prime attribute in LOTS1
To normalize LOTS1 into 3NF, w e d e c o m p o s e it into the
relation schemas LOTS1A a n d LOTS1B
We construct LOTS1A by removing the attribute Price that
violates 3NF from LOTS1 a n d placing it with Area (the lefthand
side of FD4 that causes the transitive d e p e n d e n c y ) into another
relation LOTS1B.
Both LOTS1A a n d LOTS1B are in 3NF
Boyce-Codd Normal Form
Boyce-Codd normal form (BCNF) was proposed as a simpler
form of 3NF, but it was found to b e stricter than 3NF
Every relation in BCNF is also in 3NF; however, a relation in
3NF is not n e c essarily in BC NF
Suppose that w e have thousands of lots in the relation but the
lots are from only two counties: DeKalb a n d Fulton
Suppose also that lot sizes in DeKalb County are only 0.5,
0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, a n d 1.0 acres, whereas lot sizes in Fulton
County are restricted to 1.1, 1.2, ..., 1.9, a n d 2.0 acres
In such a situation we would have the additional
functional d e p e n d e n c y FD5: Area→County_name
🠶 If we a d d this to the other dependencies, the relation
schema LOTS1A still is in 3NF because County_name is a
