Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The elementary key normal form (EKNF) falls strictly between 3NF and BCNF and is not much discussed in the literature. It is intended "to capture the salient qualities of both 3NF and BCNF" while avoiding the problems of both (namely, that 3NF is "too forgiving" and BCNF is "prone to computational complexity"). Since it is rarely mentioned in ...
Second normal form (2NF), in database normalization, is a normal form. A relation is in the second normal form if it fulfills the following two requirements: A relation is in the second normal form if it fulfills the following two requirements:
The third normal form (3NF) is a normal form used in database normalization. 3NF was originally defined by E. F. Codd in 1971. [2] Codd's definition states that a table is in 3NF if and only if both of the following conditions hold: The relation R (table) is in second normal form (2NF).
First normal form (1NF) is a property of a relation in a relational database. A relation is in first normal form if and only if no attribute domain has relations as elements. [ 1 ] Or more informally, that no table column can have tables as values.
If a relational schema is in BCNF, then all redundancy based on functional dependency has been removed, [4] although other types of redundancy may still exist. A relational schema R is in Boyce–Codd normal form if and only if for every one of its functional dependencies X → Y, at least one of the following conditions hold: [5]
Some modeling disciplines, such as the dimensional modeling approach to data warehouse design, explicitly recommend non-normalized designs, i.e. designs that in large part do not adhere to 3NF. Normalization consists of normal forms that are 1NF, 2NF, 3NF, Boyce-Codd NF (3.5NF), 4NF, 5NF and 6NF. Document databases take a different approach.
In database normalization, unnormalized form (UNF or 0NF), also known as an unnormalized relation or non-first normal form (N1NF or NF 2), [1] is a database data model (organization of data in a database) which does not meet any of the conditions of database normalization defined by the relational model.
Even if you provide a mathematical definition of 1NF, being in 1NF will be independent from being in 2NF. The quote from the article is wrong if 1NF is included. 2NF and higher are defined mathematically, and these definitions are such that for each i > j > 1, every database in iNF is also in jNF. Hence, for all NFs above 1, the quote is correct.