Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Database normalization is the process of structuring a relational database in accordance with a series of so-called normal forms in order to reduce data redundancy and improve data integrity. It was first proposed by British computer scientist Edgar F. Codd as part of his relational model .
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.
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: It is in first normal form. It does not have any non-prime attribute that is functionally dependent on any proper subset of any candidate key of the relation (i.e. it lacks partial ...
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. A document that is stored in such a database, typically would contain more than one normalized data unit and often the relationships between the units as well.
Elementary key normal form (EKNF) is a subtle enhancement on third normal form, thus EKNF tables are in 3NF by definition. This happens when there is more than one unique compound key and they overlap. Such cases can cause redundant information in the overlapping column(s).
Pages in category "Database normalization" The following 22 pages are in this category, out of 22 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. ...
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.