Removing redundancy and updating databases

  • P. De Bra
  • J. Paredaens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 470)


In order to eliminate redundant information in a database one usually uses decomposition or special database design methods to achieve Third Normal Form (or some other normal form like Boyce-Codd Normal Form). This method of database design assumes that the real world satisfies very strong constraints like functional dependencies (fds), without any exceptions.

Most databases in “Whatever” Normal Form still contain a large amount of duplicated information, because the real world satisfies very few constraints, but a lot of “almost” constrains. Horizontal Fragments (resulting from Horizontal Decomposition) can be used to separate information with different properties. The different constraints that hold in these fragments can be used to eliminate redundant information in the fragments.

We focus on the horizontal decomposition for eliminating exceptions to fds. We show how to update such horizontally decomposed databases in an efficient way.

Generating separate horizontal fragments for all desired fds that do not hold in the real world may not be possible (although for every fd there will be a fragment for its exceptions, but the fragments for a number of fds may coincide). The number of fds for which a separate exception fragment can be generated depends on the choice of fds and the order in which they are used. We show that it is possible to find (in polynomial time) the order which leads to the “optimal” decomposition of a relation into horizontal fragments.


Normal Form Polynomial Time Directed Graph Functional Dependency Decomposition Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Ceri S., G. Pelagatti, Distributed Databases: Principles and Systems, McGraw-Hill, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    De Bra P., J. Paredaens, The Membership and the Inheritance of Functional and Afunctional Dependencies. Proc. of the Colloquium on Algebra, Combinatorics and Logic in Computer Science, Gyor, Hungary, pp. 315–330, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    De Bra P., J. Paredaens, Horizontal Decompositions for Handling Exceptions to Functional Dependencies. in Advances in Database Theory, vol. II, H. Gallaire, J. Minker, J.-M. Nicolas, eds., pp. 123–144, Plenum, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    De Bra P., Horizontal Decompositions in the Relational Database Model, thesis, University of Antwerp, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Delgrande J.P., Formal bounds on the automatic generation and maintenance of integrity constraints. Proc. of the Sixth ACM PODS conference, March 1987, pp. 185–189.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Mannila H., K.-J. Räihä, Design by example: an application of Armstrong relations, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 33, nr. 2, pp. 126–141, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Mannila H., K.-J. Räihä, Algorithms for Inferring Functional Dependencies, extended abstract presented at VLDB 1987.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Paredaens J., P. De Bra, M. Gyssens, D. Van Gucht, The Structure of the Relational Database Model, EATCS Monographs on Computer Science, Springer Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Ullman J., Principles of Database and Knowledge-base Systems, Volume 1, Computer Science Press, Rockville, MD, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. De Bra
    • 1
  • J. Paredaens
    • 2
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoven
  2. 2.University of AntwerpWilrijk

Personalised recommendations