Talk:Boyce-Codd normal form

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 example not in 1NF 2 simplyfied example 3 latest simplified example 4 Boyce-Codd NF is silly 5 The example is not in 3rd normal form

[edit] example not in 1NF

I think the example is not in the First Normal Form, because "Ornate Small" isn't atomic - it should be split into "Ornate", "Small"

[edit] simplyfied example

The e-mail address shouldn't be in the table since it would've been removed in the 1st form (you can 'calculate' the data so no need to store it somewhere). Something alike : the total price of a order isn't stored in a db but calculated with your bought products,quantity,discount etc...

[edit] latest simplified example

I removed the latest simplified example because it featured a part-key dependency (email address was dependent on student id). A table with a part-key dependency does not even meet Second Normal Form, much less Boyce-Codd Normal Form. It would be more suitable, therefore, as an example to illustrate what Second Normal Form is about. --Nabav 15:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boyce-Codd NF is silly

The examples shown are not in 3NF. The two columns cited as erroneous do not depend upon the whole of the key and they do not depend on nothing but the key. The discussion admits this in some detail yet somehow cites the original table as being in 3NF. Makes no sense.

Either Boyce-Codd NF is silly or this is not an example of BCNF.

Tqbfjotld 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The example is not in 3rd normal form

Because we have a functional dependency Range Code -> Stock Category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.17.59.188 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC).