Let and be the attributes of a relation in a relational schema. Let indicate functional dependency in the context of a relational database, where .
Which of the following options is/are always true?
View worked solution
Answer: C;D
We can evaluate the correctness of each option using Armstrong's axioms for functional dependencies:
- Option A: False. If holds, then by augmentation, also holds. However, this does not imply . For example, in the relation instance with tuples and , we have and holding, but is violated.
- Option B: False. A composite key does not imply that either of the individual attributes determines . For example, if is First Name, is Last Name, and is Roll Number, can hold without or holding.
- Option C: True.
- From , by augmenting with , we get .
- From , by augmenting with , we get .
- By transitivity, and imply , which is equivalent to .
- Option D: True. This is the standard augmentation rule. If , then adding any attribute to the left-hand side still determines , i.e., .
Free practice · Your answers on this page are not saved.
