1

I am struggling with the concept of 2NF form. Lets say I have a set of functional dependencies for R1(A,B,C,D,E,H,M,K) Where :

B  -> M,C
AB -> D
DH -> E
H  -> K
A  -> H

Whenever I try to decompose it, I directly get 3NF tables. What are the rules to get something in 2NF, with minimal set of tables ?

Now how do I take this further to 3NF or BCNF?

0

1 Answer 1

2

To simplify, say we have

R(A,B,C,D)

AB -> C
A  -> D

Relation R is NOT in 2NF -- the KEY is {AB}, but {D} is dependent only on part of the key.

Now decomposition

  • Step 1. R1 {ABC} R2 {AD}

  • Done.

So, both R1 and R2 are in 6NF and therefore in 5,4,3,2,1. There is no in-between -- it may happen that in some specific example you may see "progress" 1, 2, 3, BCNF; but that is an exception, not the rule.

... looking at a systematic approach to move from 1 NF to 2 NF to 3 NF to BCNF ...

is a common misunderstanding.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.