Home/ Questions/Q 8705489
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-13T03:22:21+00:00

I have a question that concerns multi value dependency. The relation looks like this:

  • 0

I have a question that concerns multi value dependency. The relation looks like this:

R(A,B) with A -->> B (A multi value determines B)

I’ve been told that this relation is in 4th normal form, but I don’t really se how. I know that if the multi value dependency is trivial, then it doesn’t violate the 4th normal form. But is this trivial? It would be trivial if it, for example, looked like this:

{A,B} -->> B

But the first dependency example shouldn’t be trivial.

The other rule for 4th NF says that A in this case needs to be a super key of the relation, but it isn’t. As far as I can tell, A isn’t a super key, since {A,B} is needed to identify a tuple.

So the question is, why is this in 4th normal form? It seems to be violating both of the rules.

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    I found an answer to this! Seems that the trivial rule has two parts.

    A –>> B is trivial if B is a subset of A, OR if A union B is the entire relation.

    So that’s why the relation is in 4th normal form. A and B is the entire relation in this case!

    • 0