Is a table without a primary key normalized?












8















In a lecture, my lecturer showed us a table without a primary key. Upon questioning, he said that in 3NF when you remove transitive dependencies it's ok to then have a table without a primary key.



However, no primary key implies there's no functional dependencies - but 3NF is the removal of transitive dependencies, and I was taught that each table needs to have a primary key for normalization as it's all about functional dependencies.



I know it's fully possible to create a table without a primary key, but is that database considered normalized if that table exists?



I should add, the table doesn't have any “unique key”, no primary, no composite, no foreign.



The table shown has three attributes with none of them labeled as primary or unique. I asked if it was a mistake and he said it's fine to not have one. I questioned the remark as none of the information in the table can be uniquely identified and he claimed it's ok to be like this. This goes against what I was taught about normalisation.










share|improve this question

























  • Primary key is common unique key with one additional restriction - it cannot contain any part (field, field's prefix, or expression) which is NULLable. Delete PK and re-create it as UK - this will not kill 3NF. And it can be referenced to. Moreover, the normalizing integrity can be provided without indices at all - using trigger logic, for example.

    – Akina
    Feb 8 at 10:18













  • So the table still needs a unique key of some form to be normalized? The table presented doesn't even have a unique key.

    – Alex
    Feb 8 at 10:23











  • NF needs in relations existence, not in relations integrity checks.

    – Akina
    Feb 8 at 10:26






  • 1





    What definition of 3NF does your lecturer use? The original one proposed by Codd says something like: R is in 2NF and Every non-prime attribute of R is non-transitively dependent on every key of R. But, what does that mean if there are no keys in R, every relation in 2NF that does not have a key is automatically in 3NF?

    – Lennart
    Feb 8 at 11:44








  • 16





    Fascinating discussion everyone. Check out the 'add an answer' option too.

    – Paul White
    Feb 8 at 12:36
















8















In a lecture, my lecturer showed us a table without a primary key. Upon questioning, he said that in 3NF when you remove transitive dependencies it's ok to then have a table without a primary key.



However, no primary key implies there's no functional dependencies - but 3NF is the removal of transitive dependencies, and I was taught that each table needs to have a primary key for normalization as it's all about functional dependencies.



I know it's fully possible to create a table without a primary key, but is that database considered normalized if that table exists?



I should add, the table doesn't have any “unique key”, no primary, no composite, no foreign.



The table shown has three attributes with none of them labeled as primary or unique. I asked if it was a mistake and he said it's fine to not have one. I questioned the remark as none of the information in the table can be uniquely identified and he claimed it's ok to be like this. This goes against what I was taught about normalisation.










share|improve this question

























  • Primary key is common unique key with one additional restriction - it cannot contain any part (field, field's prefix, or expression) which is NULLable. Delete PK and re-create it as UK - this will not kill 3NF. And it can be referenced to. Moreover, the normalizing integrity can be provided without indices at all - using trigger logic, for example.

    – Akina
    Feb 8 at 10:18













  • So the table still needs a unique key of some form to be normalized? The table presented doesn't even have a unique key.

    – Alex
    Feb 8 at 10:23











  • NF needs in relations existence, not in relations integrity checks.

    – Akina
    Feb 8 at 10:26






  • 1





    What definition of 3NF does your lecturer use? The original one proposed by Codd says something like: R is in 2NF and Every non-prime attribute of R is non-transitively dependent on every key of R. But, what does that mean if there are no keys in R, every relation in 2NF that does not have a key is automatically in 3NF?

    – Lennart
    Feb 8 at 11:44








  • 16





    Fascinating discussion everyone. Check out the 'add an answer' option too.

    – Paul White
    Feb 8 at 12:36














8












8








8








In a lecture, my lecturer showed us a table without a primary key. Upon questioning, he said that in 3NF when you remove transitive dependencies it's ok to then have a table without a primary key.



However, no primary key implies there's no functional dependencies - but 3NF is the removal of transitive dependencies, and I was taught that each table needs to have a primary key for normalization as it's all about functional dependencies.



I know it's fully possible to create a table without a primary key, but is that database considered normalized if that table exists?



I should add, the table doesn't have any “unique key”, no primary, no composite, no foreign.



The table shown has three attributes with none of them labeled as primary or unique. I asked if it was a mistake and he said it's fine to not have one. I questioned the remark as none of the information in the table can be uniquely identified and he claimed it's ok to be like this. This goes against what I was taught about normalisation.










share|improve this question
















In a lecture, my lecturer showed us a table without a primary key. Upon questioning, he said that in 3NF when you remove transitive dependencies it's ok to then have a table without a primary key.



However, no primary key implies there's no functional dependencies - but 3NF is the removal of transitive dependencies, and I was taught that each table needs to have a primary key for normalization as it's all about functional dependencies.



I know it's fully possible to create a table without a primary key, but is that database considered normalized if that table exists?



I should add, the table doesn't have any “unique key”, no primary, no composite, no foreign.



The table shown has three attributes with none of them labeled as primary or unique. I asked if it was a mistake and he said it's fine to not have one. I questioned the remark as none of the information in the table can be uniquely identified and he claimed it's ok to be like this. This goes against what I was taught about normalisation.







database-design normalization relational-theory






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 9 at 22:26









MDCCL

6,75731745




6,75731745










asked Feb 8 at 10:13









AlexAlex

434




434













  • Primary key is common unique key with one additional restriction - it cannot contain any part (field, field's prefix, or expression) which is NULLable. Delete PK and re-create it as UK - this will not kill 3NF. And it can be referenced to. Moreover, the normalizing integrity can be provided without indices at all - using trigger logic, for example.

    – Akina
    Feb 8 at 10:18













  • So the table still needs a unique key of some form to be normalized? The table presented doesn't even have a unique key.

    – Alex
    Feb 8 at 10:23











  • NF needs in relations existence, not in relations integrity checks.

    – Akina
    Feb 8 at 10:26






  • 1





    What definition of 3NF does your lecturer use? The original one proposed by Codd says something like: R is in 2NF and Every non-prime attribute of R is non-transitively dependent on every key of R. But, what does that mean if there are no keys in R, every relation in 2NF that does not have a key is automatically in 3NF?

    – Lennart
    Feb 8 at 11:44








  • 16





    Fascinating discussion everyone. Check out the 'add an answer' option too.

    – Paul White
    Feb 8 at 12:36



















  • Primary key is common unique key with one additional restriction - it cannot contain any part (field, field's prefix, or expression) which is NULLable. Delete PK and re-create it as UK - this will not kill 3NF. And it can be referenced to. Moreover, the normalizing integrity can be provided without indices at all - using trigger logic, for example.

    – Akina
    Feb 8 at 10:18













  • So the table still needs a unique key of some form to be normalized? The table presented doesn't even have a unique key.

    – Alex
    Feb 8 at 10:23











  • NF needs in relations existence, not in relations integrity checks.

    – Akina
    Feb 8 at 10:26






  • 1





    What definition of 3NF does your lecturer use? The original one proposed by Codd says something like: R is in 2NF and Every non-prime attribute of R is non-transitively dependent on every key of R. But, what does that mean if there are no keys in R, every relation in 2NF that does not have a key is automatically in 3NF?

    – Lennart
    Feb 8 at 11:44








  • 16





    Fascinating discussion everyone. Check out the 'add an answer' option too.

    – Paul White
    Feb 8 at 12:36

















Primary key is common unique key with one additional restriction - it cannot contain any part (field, field's prefix, or expression) which is NULLable. Delete PK and re-create it as UK - this will not kill 3NF. And it can be referenced to. Moreover, the normalizing integrity can be provided without indices at all - using trigger logic, for example.

– Akina
Feb 8 at 10:18







Primary key is common unique key with one additional restriction - it cannot contain any part (field, field's prefix, or expression) which is NULLable. Delete PK and re-create it as UK - this will not kill 3NF. And it can be referenced to. Moreover, the normalizing integrity can be provided without indices at all - using trigger logic, for example.

– Akina
Feb 8 at 10:18















So the table still needs a unique key of some form to be normalized? The table presented doesn't even have a unique key.

– Alex
Feb 8 at 10:23





So the table still needs a unique key of some form to be normalized? The table presented doesn't even have a unique key.

– Alex
Feb 8 at 10:23













NF needs in relations existence, not in relations integrity checks.

– Akina
Feb 8 at 10:26





NF needs in relations existence, not in relations integrity checks.

– Akina
Feb 8 at 10:26




1




1





What definition of 3NF does your lecturer use? The original one proposed by Codd says something like: R is in 2NF and Every non-prime attribute of R is non-transitively dependent on every key of R. But, what does that mean if there are no keys in R, every relation in 2NF that does not have a key is automatically in 3NF?

– Lennart
Feb 8 at 11:44







What definition of 3NF does your lecturer use? The original one proposed by Codd says something like: R is in 2NF and Every non-prime attribute of R is non-transitively dependent on every key of R. But, what does that mean if there are no keys in R, every relation in 2NF that does not have a key is automatically in 3NF?

– Lennart
Feb 8 at 11:44






16




16





Fascinating discussion everyone. Check out the 'add an answer' option too.

– Paul White
Feb 8 at 12:36





Fascinating discussion everyone. Check out the 'add an answer' option too.

– Paul White
Feb 8 at 12:36










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















14














If a relation does not have any candidate key (and the primary key is just one of the candidate keys), then it can have duplicate rows, so in fact it is not a relation! (since relations are always sets).



In that case, it is more correct to call it a table, not a relation, as you did in your question, and note that several RDBMS in effect can manage not-relations, allowing tables without any constraint of uniqueness, even if this case is very uncommon, and produces problem (anomalies) when operating on the data.



But in this case talking about normal forms is not appropriate: all the normalization theory is based on the fundamental assumption that the objects of interest are relations, not multisets. In fact this theory is based on the (somewhat discussed) Universal Relation Assumption, that assumes that all the relations of a database are a subset of a projection of such relation, that contains all the attributes in every relation. And that object is in fact a relation (i.e. a set), not a multiset.



The fact that, when talking about data of the Relational Data Model, sometimes we exchange the two terms, tables and relations, does not means that they are actually synonym, and this difference is fundamental when we talk about normalization theory. Remember that in the books, when some normal form is introduced, it is always said something like:




A relation is in xxx normal form if...







share|improve this answer


























  • Isn't a multiset isomorphic to a set where you add an additional count attribute to the elements?

    – Barmar
    Feb 8 at 16:25






  • 3





    @Barmar yes, but then you add a candidate key and all the relevant functional dependencies, so from the normalization theory point of view you are in a completely different case.

    – Renzo
    Feb 8 at 16:59











  • Thanks for the detailed answer. I thought this was the case but as I'm only a student and he's a lecturer I felt that I need answers from people who knew more than me. Thanks alot.

    – Alex
    Feb 11 at 12:31











  • When people carry out relational operations on non-relational tables, they expect relational results. When they don't get them, these appear anomalous.

    – Walter Mitty
    Feb 11 at 15:31



















0














3NF refers to a table compliant with the first 3 Rules of Data Normalization.




  1. Elimination of repeating groups

  2. Elimination of redundant data

  3. Elimination of columns not dependent on key


The third rule requires a key. You are right, the lecturer's table was not 3NF.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "182"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f229232%2fis-a-table-without-a-primary-key-normalized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    14














    If a relation does not have any candidate key (and the primary key is just one of the candidate keys), then it can have duplicate rows, so in fact it is not a relation! (since relations are always sets).



    In that case, it is more correct to call it a table, not a relation, as you did in your question, and note that several RDBMS in effect can manage not-relations, allowing tables without any constraint of uniqueness, even if this case is very uncommon, and produces problem (anomalies) when operating on the data.



    But in this case talking about normal forms is not appropriate: all the normalization theory is based on the fundamental assumption that the objects of interest are relations, not multisets. In fact this theory is based on the (somewhat discussed) Universal Relation Assumption, that assumes that all the relations of a database are a subset of a projection of such relation, that contains all the attributes in every relation. And that object is in fact a relation (i.e. a set), not a multiset.



    The fact that, when talking about data of the Relational Data Model, sometimes we exchange the two terms, tables and relations, does not means that they are actually synonym, and this difference is fundamental when we talk about normalization theory. Remember that in the books, when some normal form is introduced, it is always said something like:




    A relation is in xxx normal form if...







    share|improve this answer


























    • Isn't a multiset isomorphic to a set where you add an additional count attribute to the elements?

      – Barmar
      Feb 8 at 16:25






    • 3





      @Barmar yes, but then you add a candidate key and all the relevant functional dependencies, so from the normalization theory point of view you are in a completely different case.

      – Renzo
      Feb 8 at 16:59











    • Thanks for the detailed answer. I thought this was the case but as I'm only a student and he's a lecturer I felt that I need answers from people who knew more than me. Thanks alot.

      – Alex
      Feb 11 at 12:31











    • When people carry out relational operations on non-relational tables, they expect relational results. When they don't get them, these appear anomalous.

      – Walter Mitty
      Feb 11 at 15:31
















    14














    If a relation does not have any candidate key (and the primary key is just one of the candidate keys), then it can have duplicate rows, so in fact it is not a relation! (since relations are always sets).



    In that case, it is more correct to call it a table, not a relation, as you did in your question, and note that several RDBMS in effect can manage not-relations, allowing tables without any constraint of uniqueness, even if this case is very uncommon, and produces problem (anomalies) when operating on the data.



    But in this case talking about normal forms is not appropriate: all the normalization theory is based on the fundamental assumption that the objects of interest are relations, not multisets. In fact this theory is based on the (somewhat discussed) Universal Relation Assumption, that assumes that all the relations of a database are a subset of a projection of such relation, that contains all the attributes in every relation. And that object is in fact a relation (i.e. a set), not a multiset.



    The fact that, when talking about data of the Relational Data Model, sometimes we exchange the two terms, tables and relations, does not means that they are actually synonym, and this difference is fundamental when we talk about normalization theory. Remember that in the books, when some normal form is introduced, it is always said something like:




    A relation is in xxx normal form if...







    share|improve this answer


























    • Isn't a multiset isomorphic to a set where you add an additional count attribute to the elements?

      – Barmar
      Feb 8 at 16:25






    • 3





      @Barmar yes, but then you add a candidate key and all the relevant functional dependencies, so from the normalization theory point of view you are in a completely different case.

      – Renzo
      Feb 8 at 16:59











    • Thanks for the detailed answer. I thought this was the case but as I'm only a student and he's a lecturer I felt that I need answers from people who knew more than me. Thanks alot.

      – Alex
      Feb 11 at 12:31











    • When people carry out relational operations on non-relational tables, they expect relational results. When they don't get them, these appear anomalous.

      – Walter Mitty
      Feb 11 at 15:31














    14












    14








    14







    If a relation does not have any candidate key (and the primary key is just one of the candidate keys), then it can have duplicate rows, so in fact it is not a relation! (since relations are always sets).



    In that case, it is more correct to call it a table, not a relation, as you did in your question, and note that several RDBMS in effect can manage not-relations, allowing tables without any constraint of uniqueness, even if this case is very uncommon, and produces problem (anomalies) when operating on the data.



    But in this case talking about normal forms is not appropriate: all the normalization theory is based on the fundamental assumption that the objects of interest are relations, not multisets. In fact this theory is based on the (somewhat discussed) Universal Relation Assumption, that assumes that all the relations of a database are a subset of a projection of such relation, that contains all the attributes in every relation. And that object is in fact a relation (i.e. a set), not a multiset.



    The fact that, when talking about data of the Relational Data Model, sometimes we exchange the two terms, tables and relations, does not means that they are actually synonym, and this difference is fundamental when we talk about normalization theory. Remember that in the books, when some normal form is introduced, it is always said something like:




    A relation is in xxx normal form if...







    share|improve this answer















    If a relation does not have any candidate key (and the primary key is just one of the candidate keys), then it can have duplicate rows, so in fact it is not a relation! (since relations are always sets).



    In that case, it is more correct to call it a table, not a relation, as you did in your question, and note that several RDBMS in effect can manage not-relations, allowing tables without any constraint of uniqueness, even if this case is very uncommon, and produces problem (anomalies) when operating on the data.



    But in this case talking about normal forms is not appropriate: all the normalization theory is based on the fundamental assumption that the objects of interest are relations, not multisets. In fact this theory is based on the (somewhat discussed) Universal Relation Assumption, that assumes that all the relations of a database are a subset of a projection of such relation, that contains all the attributes in every relation. And that object is in fact a relation (i.e. a set), not a multiset.



    The fact that, when talking about data of the Relational Data Model, sometimes we exchange the two terms, tables and relations, does not means that they are actually synonym, and this difference is fundamental when we talk about normalization theory. Remember that in the books, when some normal form is introduced, it is always said something like:




    A relation is in xxx normal form if...








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Feb 8 at 14:39









    Paul White

    52k14278450




    52k14278450










    answered Feb 8 at 14:06









    RenzoRenzo

    3,150515




    3,150515













    • Isn't a multiset isomorphic to a set where you add an additional count attribute to the elements?

      – Barmar
      Feb 8 at 16:25






    • 3





      @Barmar yes, but then you add a candidate key and all the relevant functional dependencies, so from the normalization theory point of view you are in a completely different case.

      – Renzo
      Feb 8 at 16:59











    • Thanks for the detailed answer. I thought this was the case but as I'm only a student and he's a lecturer I felt that I need answers from people who knew more than me. Thanks alot.

      – Alex
      Feb 11 at 12:31











    • When people carry out relational operations on non-relational tables, they expect relational results. When they don't get them, these appear anomalous.

      – Walter Mitty
      Feb 11 at 15:31



















    • Isn't a multiset isomorphic to a set where you add an additional count attribute to the elements?

      – Barmar
      Feb 8 at 16:25






    • 3





      @Barmar yes, but then you add a candidate key and all the relevant functional dependencies, so from the normalization theory point of view you are in a completely different case.

      – Renzo
      Feb 8 at 16:59











    • Thanks for the detailed answer. I thought this was the case but as I'm only a student and he's a lecturer I felt that I need answers from people who knew more than me. Thanks alot.

      – Alex
      Feb 11 at 12:31











    • When people carry out relational operations on non-relational tables, they expect relational results. When they don't get them, these appear anomalous.

      – Walter Mitty
      Feb 11 at 15:31

















    Isn't a multiset isomorphic to a set where you add an additional count attribute to the elements?

    – Barmar
    Feb 8 at 16:25





    Isn't a multiset isomorphic to a set where you add an additional count attribute to the elements?

    – Barmar
    Feb 8 at 16:25




    3




    3





    @Barmar yes, but then you add a candidate key and all the relevant functional dependencies, so from the normalization theory point of view you are in a completely different case.

    – Renzo
    Feb 8 at 16:59





    @Barmar yes, but then you add a candidate key and all the relevant functional dependencies, so from the normalization theory point of view you are in a completely different case.

    – Renzo
    Feb 8 at 16:59













    Thanks for the detailed answer. I thought this was the case but as I'm only a student and he's a lecturer I felt that I need answers from people who knew more than me. Thanks alot.

    – Alex
    Feb 11 at 12:31





    Thanks for the detailed answer. I thought this was the case but as I'm only a student and he's a lecturer I felt that I need answers from people who knew more than me. Thanks alot.

    – Alex
    Feb 11 at 12:31













    When people carry out relational operations on non-relational tables, they expect relational results. When they don't get them, these appear anomalous.

    – Walter Mitty
    Feb 11 at 15:31





    When people carry out relational operations on non-relational tables, they expect relational results. When they don't get them, these appear anomalous.

    – Walter Mitty
    Feb 11 at 15:31













    0














    3NF refers to a table compliant with the first 3 Rules of Data Normalization.




    1. Elimination of repeating groups

    2. Elimination of redundant data

    3. Elimination of columns not dependent on key


    The third rule requires a key. You are right, the lecturer's table was not 3NF.






    share|improve this answer




























      0














      3NF refers to a table compliant with the first 3 Rules of Data Normalization.




      1. Elimination of repeating groups

      2. Elimination of redundant data

      3. Elimination of columns not dependent on key


      The third rule requires a key. You are right, the lecturer's table was not 3NF.






      share|improve this answer


























        0












        0








        0







        3NF refers to a table compliant with the first 3 Rules of Data Normalization.




        1. Elimination of repeating groups

        2. Elimination of redundant data

        3. Elimination of columns not dependent on key


        The third rule requires a key. You are right, the lecturer's table was not 3NF.






        share|improve this answer













        3NF refers to a table compliant with the first 3 Rules of Data Normalization.




        1. Elimination of repeating groups

        2. Elimination of redundant data

        3. Elimination of columns not dependent on key


        The third rule requires a key. You are right, the lecturer's table was not 3NF.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Feb 12 at 19:15









        MetaphorMetaphor

        3611421




        3611421






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f229232%2fis-a-table-without-a-primary-key-normalized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?