We say 2NF is "the whole key" and 3NF "nothing but the key".
Referencing this answer by Smashery:
What are database normal forms and can you give examples?
The example used for 3NF is exactly the same as 2NF--it's a field which is dependent on only one key attribute. How is the example for 3NF different from the one for 2NF?
Suppose that some relation satisifies a non-trivial functional dependency of the form A->B, where B is a nonprime attribute.
2NF is violated if A is not a superkey but is a proper subset of a candidate key
3NF is violated if A is not a superkey
You have spotted that the 3NF requirement is just a special case (but not really so special) of the 2NF requirement. 2NF in itself is not very important. The important issue is whether A is a superkey, not whether A just happens to be some part of a candidate key.
Since you ask very specific question about an answer for existing so question here is an explanation of that (and basically I'll say what dportas already said in his answer, but in more words).
The examples of design that is not in 2NF and not in 3NF are not the same.
Yes, the dependency in both cases is on a single field.
However, in non 2NF example:
dependency is on the part of the primary key
while in non 3NF example (which is in 2NF):
dependency is on a field that is not a part of the primary key (and also notice that in that example it does satisfy 2NF; this is to show that even if you check for 2NF you should also check for 3NF)
In both cases to normalize you would create additional table which would not exhibit update anomalies (example of update anomaly: in 2NF example, what happens if you update Coursename for IT101|2009-2, but not for IT101|2009-1? You get inconsistent=meaningless=unusable data).
So, if you memorize the key, the whole key and nothing but the key, which covers both 2NF and 3NF, that should work for you in practice when normalizing. The distinction between 2NF and 3NF might seem subtle to you (question if in the additional dependency the attribute(s) on which the data is dependent are part of candidate key or not) - and, well, it is - so just accept it.
2NF allows non-prime attributes to be functionally dependent on non-prime attributes
but
3NF allows non-prime attributes to be functionally dependent only on super key
Thus,when a table is in 3NF it is in 2NF and 3NF is stricter than 2NF
Hope this helps...
You have achieved the 3rd NF when there are no relations between the key and other columns that don't depend on it.
Not sure my professor would have said that like this but this is what it is.
If you're "in the field". Forget about the definitions. Look for "best practices". One is DRY : Don't Repeat Yourself.
If you follow that principle, you already master everything you need for NF.
Here is an example.
Your table has the following schema:
PERSONS : id, name, age, car make, car model
Age and name are related to the person entry (=> id) but the model depends to the car and not the person.
Then, you would split it in two tables:
PERSONS : id, name, age, car_models_id (references CAR_MODELS.id)
CAR_MODELS : id, name, car_makes_id (references CAR_MAKES.id)
CAR_MAKES : id, name
You can have replication in 2FN but not in 3FN anymore.
Normalization is all about non-replication, consistency, and from another point of view foreign keys and JOINs.
The more normalized the better for data but not for performance nor understanding if it gets really too complicated.
2NF follows the partial dependency whereas 3NF follows the transitive functional dependency. It is important to know that the 3NF must be in 2NF and support transitive functional dependency.
First, we have to know the tools we work with:
candidate key attribute;
non candidate key attribute;
partial dependency;
full dependency;
Candidate Key Attribute
A candidate key attribute is any column or combination of columns that can be/form primary key. You can have many candidate keys, but you will pick only one of these to be primary key. Still, any candidate key attribute is important in 2NF. No need to be primary key, or any key, it is enough to be a candidate key attribute. 2NF refers to CANDIDATE KEY. Those that say key or primary key instead of "candidate key" add to the confusion.
Non Candidate Key Attribute
Any column that can't be primary key and can't be part of the primary key.
Partial Dependency
Partial dependency arrives when there is a candidate key formed by MORE THAN ONE column, AND a non candidate key attribute depends only on A column that constitutes the candidate key.
Full Dependency
Any non candidate key attribute, if depends on a candidate key, then depends on the WHOLE candidate key. If the candidate key is formed by more than one column, then the dependent column must depend on any column that forms the candidate key.
Now you have the tools to understand 2NF and 3NF.
2NF does not allow partial dependency. If you find a non candidate key attribute that is partially dependent on a candidate key attribute, you must beak partial dependency to make it full dependency. So 2NF allows a non candidate key attribute to be full dependent on a candidate key attribute that is not primary key. It is just a possible primary key, if you pick it, but you are not forced to pick it. 2NF is compliant only by that.
Let's say you have it in 2NF. All non candidate key attributes are full dependent on candidate key attributes. But a non candidate key attribute is full dependent on a candidate key attribute that you did not pick it to be primary key. 3NF do not allow it. All full dependencies must be with primary key (at this point you picked a primary key already).
Related
When my instructor taught my SQL class about 2NF, they mentioned that it's violated if there's partial dependency - that is, when a table has a composite key and a non-key column depends only on one of the keys, and not all of the columns that comprise the PK.
If there's an entity with a single-columned PK, and there's a non-key attribute that does not depend on this PK, does it mean that it's in 2NF because the entity does not have a composite key and partial dependency is not possible, and would therefore never be violated (an attribute is only either dependent or not dependent on the PK)?
Thank you!
I'm certainly not an expert on this subject but to quote GeeksforGeeks:
"Second Normal Form applies to relations with composite keys, that is, relations with a primary key composed of two or more attributes. A relation with a single-attribute primary key is automatically in at least 2NF." (https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/second-normal-form-2nf/)
So, at least according to them, the answer is yes.
I must normalise table data to 3NF.
I have a composite key from 1NF, but all of the non-key attributes appear to be reliant on both of the primary key attributes. I'm trying to take it from 2NF into 3NF. Can I still have a composite key?
You can have a compound key in every normal form.
In fact, when you write functional dependencies in the form A->B, both A and B refer to sets of attributes. That's why they're in uppercase; uppercase letters represent sets in set theory.
...all of the non-key attributes appear to be reliant on Both of the primary keys...
There's only one primary key. In your case, that one primary key has more than one attribute.
There might be more than one candidate key, though. In normalization, every candidate key is equally important. For example, if you're trying to identify transitive dependencies, you need to look for transitivity with respect to every candidate key, not just the primary key.
Defination of Superkey and Primary key in wikipedia
A superkey is a set of attributes within a table whose values can be used to uniquely identify a tuple.
and
The primary key has to consist of characteristics that cannot be duplicated by any other row. The primary key may consist of a single attribute or a multiple attributes in combination.
I've gone through many books and surfed on internet but what i found in them is what is primarykey and what is superkey.
But what i want to know is why superkey is required when we can identify a tuple uniquely through primarykey ?
Superkeys are defined for conceptual completeness. You never need a superkey for reference purposes. A reference to a primary key will do just fine.
The concept of superkeys can be useful when you are analyzing a body of data in order to discover all the functional dependencies in it.
Once you have discovered a key, the next question is whether or not it is a superkey. If is is, you turn your attention to the candidate key contained in the superkey.
Let's define what these terms mean in the first place:
A "superkey" is any set of attributes that, when taken together, uniquely identify rows in the table.
A minimal1 superkey is called "candidate key", or just "key".
All keys in the same table are logically equivalent, but for historical and practical reasons we choose one of them and call it "primary", while the remaining are "alternate" keys.
So, every primary key is key, but not every key is primary. Every key is superkey, but not every superkey is key.
Constraints that physically enforce keys in the database are: PRIMARY KEY constraint (for primary key) and UNIQUE constraint (for alternate key). These constraints should not be created on all superkeys, only on keys.
It is not unusual to have multiple keys in the same table, depending on the nature of your data. For example, a USER table might have unique USER_ID and unique USER_NAME. Since both of them need to be unique on their own, you must create2 both keys, even though only one of them is strictly needed for identification.
1 That is, a superkey that would stop being unique (and therefore, being a superkey) if any of the attributes were removed from it.
2 I.e. create PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE constraint.
A word key is usually a short for a candidate key.
Superkey means a super-set of a key (key attributes and some more).
Irreducible superkey is called a candidate key. (Irreducible means that if you remove one attribute, it is not a key any more); in general, there is more than one candidate key for a given relation (actually a relational variable).
One candidate key that designer choses to prefer (for some reason) is called the primary key.
This was on a logical level, keys are defined for relational variables, so called relvars.
In physical implementation:
Relvar maps to a table.
Primary key to the primary key of the table.
Other candidate keys (except PK) map to alternate keys (unique not null).
A primary key is a superkey. Having only one such key constraint and only one way to identify tuples isn't necessarily sufficient.
Firstly, the relational model's versatility derives very much from the fact that it does not predetermine how data can or should be accessed in a table. A user or application is free to query a table based on whatever set of attributes may be necessary or convenient at the time. There is no obligation to use a "primary" key, which may or may not be relevant for some queries.
Secondly, uniqueness constraints (usually on candidate keys) are a data integrity feature. They guarantee data isn't duplicated in the key attributes. That kind of constraint is often useful on more than one set of attributes where business rules dictate that things should be unique. Uniqueness of one thing alone obviously doesn't guarantee uniqueness of another thing.
Thirdly, the query optimiser can take advantage of any and all keys as a way of optimising data access through query rewrites. From the optimiser's point of view the more keys it has to work with in a table the better.
I think superkey is just part of the relational algebra abstraction - your primary key is (likely) to be the minimal superkey but you might have other superkeys whereas you only have one primary key.
My informal representation of these are:
1NF: The table is divided so that no item will appear more than once.
2NF: ?
3NF: Values can only be determined by the primary key.
I cannot make sense of it from the excerpts I found online or in my book. How do I differentiate between 1NF and 2NF?
A relation schema is in 2NF if every non-prime attribute is fully functionally dependent on every key.
Wikipedia says:
A table is in 2NF if and only if, it is in 1NF and every non-prime
attribute of the table is either dependent on the whole of a candidate
key, or on another non prime attribute.
To explain the concept, let's use a table for a inventory of toys adapted from Head First SQL:
TOY_ID| STORE_ID| INVENTORY| STORE_ADDRESS
The primary key is composed by the attributes TOY_ID and STORE_ID. If we analize the non-prime attribute INVENTORY we see that in depends on TOY_ID and STORE_ID at the same time. That's cool.
But on the other side, the non-prime attribue STORE_ADDRESS only depends on the STORE_ID attribute (i.e it's not related to the primary key attribute TOY_ID). That's a clear violation of 2NF, so to complain to the 2NF our schema must be like this:
An Inventory table: TOY_ID| STORE_ID| INVENTORY
and an Store table: STORE_ID| STORE_ADDRESS
Some columns are part of a key (primary or secondary). We'll call these prime attributes.
For second normal form we'll consider the non-prime attributes and see if they should be moved to another table. We might find that some attributes don't require the full key for us to be able to identify what value they hold for at least one candidate key. That is, there is a candidate key where we could still determine the value of that attribute given the candidate key even if the values in one column of that candidate key were erased.
Ok so i have 2 tables. First table's name is owner with
owner_id primary key
first_name
last_name
and i have another table car with
car_reg_no primary key
car_type
car_make
car_model
car_origin
owner_id foreign key
Is this design in 2NF or 3NF or neither ?
AFAIK, 2NF, due to interdependence of the fields of the car table. You would need a third table for car_type which lists make, model and origin, and a foreign car_type_id in the car table.
A 3NF means its in 2NF and there are no transitive functional dependencies. In a slightly more understandable terms: "all attributes depend on key, whole key, and nothing but the key".
The first table fulfills all that, so it's in 3NF.
The second table needs some analysis: are there functional dependencies on non-keys? Specifically, can there be the same car model belonging to a different make?
If yes, then the functional dependency car_model -> car_make does not exist, and the table is in 3NF (unless some other dependency violates 3NF - see the comment on car_origin below).
It no, then there there is car_model -> car_make which violates 3NF.
Also, what's the meaning of car_origin? If it functionally depends on a non-key, this could also violate the 3NF.