Re: Basic question?What 's the key if there 's no FD(Functional Dependencies)?
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_dbms.yuc>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:42:17 GMT
Message-ID: <tOd2h.237313$5R2.133420_at_pd7urf3no>
>
> I'm not sure: I've never thought about it. Is {} --> {} trivial? Probably
> so.
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:42:17 GMT
Message-ID: <tOd2h.237313$5R2.133420_at_pd7urf3no>
Brian Selzer wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_dbms.yuc> wrote in message
> news:pic2h.242958$R63.119230_at_pd7urf1no...
>> Brian Selzer wrote: >>> <saturnlee_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:1162158876.794350.29460_at_f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>>> I have a basic question. >>>> Suppose there are 3 attributes: A,B and C. >>>> And there are no FD(trivial and non trivial ) >>>> >>>> What 's the key for it? ABC or nothing??? >>>> >>> A relation with at least one attribute *ALWAYS* has at least one FD. >>> Here are some of them for your example: >>> >>> {ABC} --> A >>> {ABC} --> B >>> {ABC} --> C >>> {ABC} --> {ABC} >>> >>> Note that all of the FD's are trivial. >>> >>> >> Wouldn't a relation with no attributes also have a trivial FD? >>
>
> I'm not sure: I've never thought about it. Is {} --> {} trivial? Probably
> so.
Alright, I'll risk displaying my ignorance and ask if such a relation has exactly one FD, is there a way to count to two? (and thus three, four ...)
p Received on Thu Nov 02 2006 - 04:42:17 CET