home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!sunic!dkuug!diku!elgaard
- From: elgaard@diku.dk (Niels Elgaard Larsen)
- Newsgroups: comp.databases
- Subject: Re: Normalizing 2NF -> 3NF
- Message-ID: <1992Nov15.223825.16263@odin.diku.dk>
- Date: 15 Nov 92 22:38:25 GMT
- References: <1992Nov15.163413.17527@news.uiowa.edu>
- Sender: elgaard@trud.diku.dk
- Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
- Lines: 49
-
- bonak@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Esmail Bonakdarian) writes:
-
- >E.g., given a relation with three attributes, A, B, and C, where
- >attribute A is the PK, the following dependencies exist:
-
- >+----+-----+----+
- >| A* | B | C |
- >+----+-----+----+
-
- > A -> B
- > B -> C
-
- >i.e, A determines B, and B in turn determines C.
-
- >3NF would split this up into two relations:
-
- >+----+-----+
- >| A* | B |
- >+----+-----+
- > and
-
- >+----+----+ +----+----+
- >| A* | C | OR | B* | C |
- >+----+----+ +----+----+
-
- >Which of these two latter relations is the "correct" one according to
- >the theory? Or does it always depend on the given semantics of the data
- >being modeled? It seems to me that I've seen both.
-
- Both are correct since both (A,C) and (B,C) are on 3NF. That does of course
- not mean that they are equally good. Depends on the queries on the database.
-
- >Could somebody please clear this up form me? Also, any references to
- >material/articles (both on/off the net) that explain the normalization
- >process clearly would be much appreciated.
-
- @book{Date90,
- author = "C. J. Date",
- title = "An Introduction to Database Systems",
- publisher = "Addison-Wesley",
- year = "1990",
- volume = "I",
- edition = "5"
- }
- --
- Niels Elgaard Larsen
- Institute of Computer Science,
- University of Copenhagen
- E-mail: elgaard@diku.dk
-