What kind of normalization rule does this violate?

Question

Suppose I have two tables on a database, T₁₀ and T₁₁, having 10 and 11 columns, respectively, where 10 of the columns are exactly the same on both.

What (if any) normalization rule am I violating?

Answer 1

Edit: I have been informed that no Normal Forms are violated here in theory. Since this was the accepted answer, I'm leaving it here for reference, and because thinking about 3NF may in practice help avoid situations like that in the question.

You are violating the Third Normal Form (3NF), because if mostly the same data is held in both tables, then every attribute of each table is not directly dependent on the key of its respective table.

Answer 2

Believe it or not, duplicating columns across tables violates no theoretical normal form in and of itself. Except for domain/key normal form (DKNF), normal forms are defined in terms of individual, not multiple, tables. DKNF is defined in terms of constraints, of which there are none in the general case. Thus, if there's a violation of a normal form:

• it must be specific to one of the tables and exists independently of having both tables (i.e. the table would still violate the normal form even if you removed the other table), or
• the relation has a constraint that violates DKNF, which means it isn't an example of the general case outlined in the question but a more specific case. It's not the duplicate columns that create the violation but instead the additional constraint on the extra column.

Consider the normal forms, using the brief definitions from the Wikipedia article:

1NF

The table faithfully represents a relation and has no repeating groups.

This one's fairly straight forward. The term "repeating groups" has multiple meanings in the theory, but none of them have anything to do with duplicate columns or data.

2NF

No non-prime attribute in the table is functionally dependent on a proper subset of any candidate key.

Here, the important term to examine is "functional dependence". Essentially, a functional dependence is where you project a relation to two columns, X and Y, and wind up with a function X → Y. You can't have a functional dependency between two (or more) tables^*. Additionally, candidate keys can't span multiple tables.

3NF

Every non-prime attribute is non-transitively dependent on every candidate key in the table.

Transitive dependence is defined in terms of functional dependence: a transitive dependency is a dependency where X → Z only because X → Y and Y → Z. X, Y and Z must be in the same table because these are functional dependencies.

4NF

Every non-trivial multivalued dependency in the table is a dependency on a superkey.

Multivalued dependency is a little trickier, but it can be illustrated with an example: "whenever the tuples (a,b,c) and (a,d,e) exist in r, the tuples (a,b,e) and (a,d,c) should also exist in r" (where "r" is a table). Most importantly for the matter at hand, a multivalued dependency only applies to a single table.

5NF

Every non-trivial join dependency in the table is implied by the superkeys of the table.

A table has a join dependency if it can be expressed as the natural join of other tables. These other tables, however, don't need to exist in the database. If table T₁₁ in the example had a join dependency, it would still have one even if you removed table T₁₀

6NF (C. Date)

Table features no non-trivial join dependencies at all (with reference to generalized join operator).

Same reasoning for 5NF.

Elementary Key Normal Form (EKNF)

Every non-trivial functional dependency in the table is either the dependency of an elementary key attribute or a dependency on a superkey.

Same reasoning for 2NF.

Boyce–Codd Normal Form (BCNF)

Every non-trivial functional dependency in the table is a dependency on a superkey.

Same reasoning for 2NF.

Domain/Key Normal Form (DKNF)

Every constraint on the table is a logical consequence of the table's domain constraints and key constraints.

If T₁₁ has a constraint that depends on T₁₀, then it's either a key constraint or a more complex constraint that still refers to T₁₀. The latter case is not the general case mentioned in the question. In other words, while there could be specific schemata with duplicate columns that violate DKNF, it's not true in general. Furthermore, it's the constraint (not the normal form) that's defined in terms of multiple tables and the constraint (not the column duplication) that causes DKNF violation.

---

The purpose for normalization includes preventing anomalies. However, normalization isn't complete in that it doesn't guarantee a relational database will be completely free from anomalies. This is one instance where practice diverges from theory.

If this still doesn't convince you, consider the schema KM.'s comment hints at, where T₁₁ represents a history (or versioned) version of T₁₀. The primary key of T₁₁ consists of the primary key columns held in common with T₁₀, plus the extra column (the date/version column). That T₁₁ has different candidate keys makes all the difference between an anomaly-prone and anomaly free, normalized design.

^*Someone might think that you could use joins to create a dependency between two tables. While a join might create a table that has a dependency, the dependency exists on this table, not between the constituents of the join. In the case at hand, this again means that one of the tables would be a joined table and would suffer from the dependency itself, irrespective of the other table in the database.

Answer 3

Perhaps the rule of avoiding redundant data? (i.e. the same data in two tables)

Answer 4

if 10 of the 11 columns are the same, why can't this just be one table, where the 11th column is left blank (along with a possible 12th column to denote which type of data it is, i.e. which table it would have been in originally)?

Answer 5

It depends what's in the tables.

If no records are related to each other (for instance, if one table is simply archived records originating in but removed from the first table) you're not violating any rules.

But if those are the same records in each table, you have a dependency problem — that eleventh column is dependent only on the key value from the record, not the additional columns. Assuming that all ten columns are not involved in the primary key, you've violated 3rd NF.

Answer 6

Having two identical or near-identical relations is not itself a violation of any of the usual Normal Forms. Outis has very comprehensively explained why. It might well be a violation of the Principle of Orthogonal Design however, which is another aspect of relational database design theory.

Answer 7

If all 10 columns are part of your key, then Second Normal Form: Eliminating Redundant Data. Specifically, this falls under "Nonsurrogate Versus Surrogate Primary Keys" dilemma - to be honest, I don't recall either of those two choices to be "violating" 2NF, but the surrogate key is definitely closer to the spirit of 2NF

Answer 8

Only primary keys may be redundant between tables. Having any amount of non primary key columns in multiple tables violates third normal form.