Dr. Alexandra I.

Cristea
http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~acristea/
CS 319: Theory of Databases: C3
(provisionary) Content
1. Generalities DB
2. Integrity constraints (FD revisited)
3. Relational Algebra (revisited)
4. Query optimisation
5. Tuple calculus
6. Domain calculus
7. Query equivalence
8. LLJ, DP and applications
9. Temporal Data
10. The Askew Wall
2
previous


Proving with Armstrong axioms
(non)Redundancy of FDs
3
FD Part 3
Soundness and Completeness of
Armstrongs axioms
4
Armstrongs Axioms:
Sound & Complete
Ingredients:
Functional Dependency (reminder)
Definition
Inference rules
Closure of F : F+
F+: Set of all FDs obtained by applying inferences rules on a basic set
of FDs
Issues and resolutions
Armstrongs Axioms (reminder)
3 inferences rules for obtaining the closure of F
Properties of the Armstrongs Axioms
They are a sound an complete set of inference rules

Proof of the completeness
5
Functional Dependency
- A functional dependency (FD) has the form X Y
where X and Y are sets of attributes in a relation R







X Y iff any two tuples that agree on X value also agree on Y value


X Y if and only if:

for any instance r of R
for any tuples t
1
and t
2
of r
t
1
(X) = t
2
(X) t
1
(Y) = t
2
(Y)

6
Inference of Functional
Dependencies
Suppose R is a relation scheme, and F is a set of functional
dependencies for R

If X, Y are subsets of attributes of Attr(R) and if all instances r of
R which satisfy the FDs in F also satisfy X Y, then we say
that F entails (logically implies) X Y, written F , X Y
In other words:
there is no instance r of R that does not satisfy X Y



Example
if F = { A B, B C } then F , A C

if F = { S A, SI P } then
F , S I AP, F , SP SAP etc.

A B C
S A
P I
7
Functional Dependency
Issue:
How to represent set of ALL FDs for a relation R?

Solution
Find a basic set of FDs ((canonical) cover)
Use axioms for inferring
Represent the set of all FDs as the set of FDs that can be
inferred from a basic set of FDs

Axioms
they must be a sound and complete set of inference rules

8
Set of Functional Dependencies F*
Formal Definition of F*, the cover of F:



Informal Definitions
F* is the set of all FDs logically implied by F
(entailed)

... usually F* is much too large even to
enumerate!


if F is a set of FDs, then F
*
{ X Y | F X Y }

9
F*
Usually F
*
is much too large even to
enumerate!
Example (3 attributes, 2 FDs and 43 entailed
dependencies)

Attr(R)=ABC and F ={ A B, B C } then F
*
is
A S for all [subset of ABC] 8 FDs
B BC, B B, B C, B C 4 FDs
C C, C C, C C 3 FDs
AB S for all subsets S of ABC 8 FDs
AC S for all subsets S of ABC 8 FDs
BC BC, BC B, BC C, BC C 4 FDs
ABC S for all subsets S of ABC 8 FDs









A B C
10
Armstrongs Axioms
Axioms for reasoning about FDs






F1: reflexivity if Y _ X then X Y
F2: augmentation if X Y then XZ YZ
F3: transitivity if X Y and Y Z then X Z
11
F
+

Informal Definition



Formal Definition
F
+

(the closure of F) is the set of dependencies which can
be deduced from F by applying Armstrongs axioms
if F is a set of FDs, then F
+
{ X Y | F |= X Y }
12
Armstrongs Axioms
Theorem:
Armstrongs axioms are a sound and complete
set of inference rules

Sound: all Armstrong axioms are valid (correct / hold)
Complete: all fds that are entailed can be deduced with
the help of the Armstrong axioms

How to:
Prove the soundness?
13
Armstrongs Axioms
Theorem: Armstrongs axioms are a sound
and complete set of inference rules
Sound: the Armstrongs rules generate only FDs in
F*

F
+
_ F*
Complete: the Armstrongs rules generate all FDs
in F*

F* _ F
+

If complete and sound then F
+
= F*

Here
Proof of the completeness
14
Armstrongs Theorems
Additional rules derived from axioms
Union
if A B and A C, then A BC

Decomposition
if A BC, then A B and A C
A B
C
A
B
C
For the proof, we can use:
15
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Proving that Armstrongs axioms are a
complete set of inference rules

Armstrongs axioms generate all FDs in F*




F* _ F +
16
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
First define X
+
, the closure of X with respect to F:
X
+
is the set of attributes A such that X A can be deduced
from F with Armstrongs axioms
Note that we can deduce that X Y for some set Y by
applying Armstrongs axioms if and only if Y _ X
+


Attr(R)=LMNO
X=L
F={L M , M N, O N}
then X
+
= L
+
= LMN
L M N
O
Example:
17
X Y e F
+
<=> Y _ X
+
Proof: We can deduce that X Y for some set Y by applying
Armstrongs axioms if and only if Y _ X
+
Y _ X
+
X Y e F
+
Y _ X
+
and suppose that A eY then X A e F
+
(definition of X
+
)
A eY: X A e F
+
X Y e F
+
(union rule)
X Y e F
+
Y _ X
+

X Y e F
+
and suppose that A eY then X A e F
+

(decomposition rule)
A e X
+
(definition of X
+
)
A eY: A e X
+
Y _ X
+
18
Completeness (F* _ F
+
) of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Completeness:
(R, X,Y _Attr(R), F true in R : : X Y e F
*
=> X Y e F
+
)
Idea: (A => B) (A v B) (B v A) (B =>A)
To establish completeness, it is sufficient to show:
if X Y cannot be deduced from F using Armstrongs axioms then also X Y is not
logically implied by F:
(R, X,Y _Attr(R), F true in R : : X Y e F
+

=> X Y e F*)

(In other words) there is a relational instance r in R (reR) in which all the
dependencies in F are true, but X Y does not hold
X Y e F* enough:
Counter example!!
19
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Example for the proof idea for a given R, F, X:
If X Y cannot be deduced using Armstrongs axioms: then there
is a relational instance for R in which all the dependencies in F are
true, but X Y does not hold






Counter example:
R=LMNO
X=L
F={L M , M N, O N}
then X
+
= LMN
L M N
O
L O cannot be
deduced (so not in F+)
but also does not hold
(not in F*)

20
What we want to prove thus:
(R, X,Y _Attr(R), F true in R : : X Y e F
+

=> X Y e F*)

(In other words) Counterexample by construction:
for any R, any X, Y, any F true in R,
with X->Y not inferable from the axioms
there is a relational instance r in R (reR)
in which all the dependencies in F are true
(F true in R ),
but X Y does not hold
21
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Suppose one can not deduce X Y from Armstrongs
axioms for an arbitrary R, F, X,Y; construct counter-ex.
Consider the instance r
0
for R with 2 tuples





(assuming Boolean attributes, or more generally, that the two
tuples agree on X+ but disagree elsewhere)
Attributes of
X
+
Other
Attributes
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 . 1 0 0 0
Relational instance r
0
for R with 2 tuples
L
+
= LMN
L M N O
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 0
R=LMNO
X=L
then X
+
= L
+

L O cannot
be deduced
Example:
22
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Check that all the dependencies in F are true in R:
Suppose that V W is a dependency in F
If V is not a subset of X
+
, the dependency holds in r
0

If V is a subset of X
+
, then both X V, and then X W can be
deduced by Armstrongs axioms. This means that W is a
subset of X
+
, and thus V W holds in r
0
Attributes of X
+
Other Attributes
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 . 1 0 0 0
Relational instance r
0
for R with 2 tuples
23
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Check that all the dependencies in F are true
Extended Example (more tuples)
O N is a dependency in F but O is not a subset of X
+
,
the dependency holds in r
0

M N is a dependency in F and M is a subset of X
+
,
then both L M, and L N can be deduced by
Armstrongs axioms. This means that N is a subset of
X
+
, and thus M N holds in r
0
R=LMNO
X=L
F={L M , M N, O N}
then X
+
= LMN
24
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Proof that X Y does not hold in r
0
:
Recall that we can deduce that X Y for some set Y by
applying Armstrongs axioms if and only if Y _ X
+

By assumption, we cant deduce that X Y holds in r
0

Hence Y contains (at least) an attribute not in the subset X
+
,
confirming that X Y does not hold in r
0


Attributes of
X
+
Other
Attributes
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 . 1 0 0 0
Relational instance r
0
for R with 2 tuples
(R, X,Y _Attr(R), F true in R : : X -> Y e F+ => X -> Y e F*)
25
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
We have proved the correctness (last module)
and here, the completeness of Armstrongs
Axioms:
How can we prove the completeness of another
set of rules?
Repeat the proof for this set
Deduce the Armstrongs Axioms from this set
How can we disprove the completeness of another
set of rules?
By showing (via a counterexample) that some
consequence of Armstrong's rules cannot be deduced
from them (see the proof technique for non-redundancy)

26
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Exercise
Are the following set of rules a sound and complete set of
inference rules? (X, Y, Z, W _ R)
S1: X X
S2: if X Y then XZ Y
S3: if X Y, Y Z then XW ZW

(This is a typical exam question )

27
Solution (soundness)
X X _ so by F1
Y X if
then by F2
X X
YZ XZ
so by F1
Y YZ
YZ Y _
so by F3
Y XZ
Y YZ YZ XZ ,
Y XZ
Y X

Z Y Y X , if then by F3
Z X
so by F2
ZW XW
ZW XW
Z Y Y X

,
S1


S2


S3
28
Solution (completeness)
X Y _
so {S1} Y Y,
{S2}YZ Y
if
X YZ Z = - ::
then
hence X Y
Y X {S1} X X, X Y, so
{S3} XZ YZ
if then
hence
YZ XZ
Y X

A1


A2


A3
Z Y Y X ,
if
then {S3}
hence
Z X
Z Y Y X

,
0 0 / / Z X
29
Completeness of the
Armstrongs Axioms
Exercises
Are the following set of rules a complete set of inference rules?
1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
A B AB

A





B




A
B

} 0 { }, , { ) ( A F B A R Att / = =
Suppose
Apply above rules exhaustively
AB B
Hence: answer is NO
obtained from F1-3
but not from R1-3
R1: X X
R2: X Y then XZ Y
R3: X Y, Y Z then X Z
30
Summary
We have learned how to prove that the
Armstrong axiom set is complete (and
we already knew it is sound)
We can now prove the soundness and
completeness of any other set of
axioms
31
Extra Question:
Can we have a sound and complete set of
inference rules consisting of only 2 rules?
What about 1 rule?
32
to follow

Dependency preserving, Lossless join,
Normal forms algorithms
33