Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm having trouble understanding the logic in use for identifying functional dependancies.

Looking at the sample relation below, I understand fd1 - fd3. But when I look at fd4 and fd5, its logic makes me believe that fd6 and fd7 would also be possible, but it's not according to the book I'm studying.

The logic that operates fd4 and fd5 is to me:

We conclude that unique combination of values in in columns A and B such as (a, b) is associated with a single value in column E, which in this example is "q". In other words attributes (A, B) functionally determines attribute E, and this is shown as fd4 in the sample relation. We also conclude that attributes (B, C) functionally determine attribute E using the same reasoning described earlier, and this functional dependancy is shown as fd 5 in the sample relation.

So why is fd6 and fd7 not true?

A sample relation

share|improve this question
If {A} -> {C} holds, then {A,+} -> {C} holds too. IF {C} -> {A} holds then {C,+} -> A holds too; therefore {C,D} -> {A} is true. Same logic for {B,C} -> E and {B,C,A} -> E. Not sure which book you have, but there are many bad DB books out there... in other words throw this one to garbage and get some classics. – Damir Sudarevic Aug 13 '14 at 11:59

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.