In what normal form is the LOTS relation schema in Figure 15.12(a) with respect to the restrictive interpretations of normal form that take only the primary key into account? Would it be in the same normal form if the general definitions of normal form were used?
What will be an ideal response?
If we only take the primary key into account, the LOTS relation schema in Figure 14.11
(a) will be in 2NF since there are no partial dependencies on the primary key .
However, it is not in 3NF, since there are the following two transitive dependencies on
the primary key:
PROPERTY_ID# ->COUNTY_NAME ->TAX_RATE, and
PROPERTY_ID# ->AREA ->PRICE.
Now, if we take all keys into account and use the general definition of 2NF and 3NF, the
LOTS relation schema will only be in 1NF because there is a partial dependency
COUNTY_NAME ->TAX_RATE on the secondary key {COUNTY_NAME, LOT#}, which
violates 2NF.
You might also like to view...
The ________ visually indicates which workbook cells are included in a formula calculation
A) status bar B) data point C) data marker D) range finder
Under C-SCAN scheduling, which the disk arm finishes sweeping from the outermost track to the innermost track, it ________.
a) reverses direction b) skips to the mid-range tracks c) jumps back to the outermost track d) services the next n requests using scan.