Sample solutions for problem (Elmasri and Navathe.) 14.

18 (a-f)

14.19

14.24

Exercise 14.21 No, G is not minimal. G that is equivalent to G. G = {Ssn Ename, Ssn Bdate, Ssn Address, Ssn Dnumber, Dnumber Dname, Dnumber Dmgr_ssn} Definition of equivalent sets of functional dependencies should be used to prove that G is equivalent to G.

Exercise 14.28 a. i. A B: cannot hold. Tuples #1 and #2 cause the violation. t1[A] = t2[A] but t1[B] t2[B]. ii. B C: may hold. iii. C B: cannot hold. Tuples #1 and #3 cause the violation. t1[C] = t3[C] but t1[B] t3[B]. iv. B A: cannot hold. Tuples #1 and #5 cause the violation. t1[B] = t5[B] but t1[A] t5[A]. v. C A: cannot hold. Tuples #1 and #3 cause the violation. t1[C] = t3[C] but t1[A] t3[A]. b. Yes, a potential candidate key is (A, B) or (A, C).

Exercise 14.32 * Normal Forms The relation is in 1NF because it does not have multivalued nor composite attributes. The relation is NOT in 2NF because the functional dependency Salesman# Commission% makes Commission% partially dependent on the primary key {Car#, Salesman#}, which violates the 2NF requirement. The relation is NOT in 3NF because of the transitive dependency of Discount_amt on the primary key via Date_sold. * Normalization The original CAR_SALE should be decomposed as below: 2NF: R1 (Car#, Date_sold, Salesman#, Discount_amt) R2 (Salesman#, Commission%) 3NF: R1 (Car#, Date_sold, Salesman#) R2 (Salesman#, Commission%) R3 (Date_sold, Discount_amt)