Thank you for your clear explanation. You put my professor Desai Pipin from Concordia University to shame. Without you, I wouldnt be able to learn anything from the course. Thank you.
@89lovely89 If X isn't a subset of a key then it's a nonprime attribute. That has nothing to do with whether it is a key or not. As for 2NF and 3NF: 2NF basically says that no nonprime attribute is dependent on a proper subset of a candidate key. 3NF says for any nontrivial dependancy X -> A, either X is a key or A is a prime attribute :D
I have a question for you. Is your definition of table being in 3NF is equivalent to a definition that says: The table is in 3NF if it is 1NF and there are no transitive dependencies of non primary attributes with the key? And if so can you provide the proof? Would be interesting
Hi Peter, This is the next video in the series. Please see UHCL 30a Graduate Database Course - Bernsteins Synthesis Algorithm Also, here is a link to my database course show the order of all the videos: sce.uhcl.edu/boetticher/courses.html Best, Dr. Boetticher
Thank you for your clear explanation. You put my professor Desai Pipin from Concordia University to shame. Without you, I wouldnt be able to learn anything from the course. Thank you.
Thanks a lot for this video series. I ve had some issues with this but the videos are just amazing! Im so ready for my exam now.
Thanks great lecture (as usual) and useful shortcuts. Wonderful series Dr. Gary.
@89lovely89 If X isn't a subset of a key then it's a nonprime attribute. That has nothing to do with whether it is a key or not. As for 2NF and 3NF: 2NF basically says that no nonprime attribute is dependent on a proper subset of a candidate key. 3NF says for any nontrivial dependancy X -> A, either X is a key or A is a prime attribute :D
So to violate 2NF we looked for "subset key --> NP" So would it be safe to say, to violate 3NF we look for a "NP --> NP" ?
Your the bomb Gary!
what is superkey . i am confused about the left side of the violation of 3nf
I have a question for you. Is your definition of table being in 3NF is equivalent to a definition that says: The table is in 3NF if it is 1NF and there are no transitive dependencies of non primary attributes with the key? And if so can you provide the proof? Would be interesting
thx
where are "b" parts ? You have 29a 30a etc
Hi,
There is no b part.
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Boetticher
Do you have any videos in regards to decomposition. Say I wanted to use decomposition to get into 3NF. Im not sure how to do it
Hi Peter,
This is the next video in the series.
Please see UHCL 30a Graduate Database Course - Bernsteins Synthesis Algorithm
Also, here is a link to my database course show the order of all the videos:
sce.uhcl.edu/boetticher/courses.html
Best,
Dr. Boetticher
ur awesome
here superkey means minimal superkey?
Why is BC a non-prime? Thank you.
but why (AB) is not a key and only (A) , sir ?
use the L|M|R method, you can get A+ contains all attributes in this Relation, no need to add attributes in M column,
i just took this subject and I find it very complicated.
@ReaperOfShadowz wtv kid