A connection like sec course may be built from a collection of many-to-one connections. To what extent do the primary and foreign key restrictions enforce the many-to-one cardinality limitation of the relation? I was wondering why you came to that conclusion.

For these questions, there exists 4 relations: R(A, B,C), S(C,D), T(D,E,F), and U(B,G). The size of attributes A to D are 10 bytes each, attributes E and F have size 100 bytes, and attribute G has size 1000 bytes. The blocks size is 16,384 bytes with no spanning. Relation R has 100,000 tuples, relation S has 20,000 typles, T has 5,000 tuples, and relation U has 150,000 tuples. Other statistics: V(R,C)=10,000, V(S,D)=500, V(R,B)=1000. Assume that attributes with the same name can be joined across relations (and duplicates are eliminated during a join), and the fırst attribute is the primary key of the relation. Answer the following questions about calculating intermediate result sizes. Answer the question in terms of the # of tuples and the # of blocks. Question 3 What is the size of op=10(S)? Tuples: Blocks: Question 4 What is the size of oc>10(S)? Tuples: Blocks: Question 5 What is the size of og=5(R)? Tuples: Blocks:

A set of many-to-one connections may be used to construct a link similar to the second course. Does the many-to-one cardinality constraint apply to the relation under the main and foreign key restrictions? Why do you think that is?

Discuss the classification of traceability relations; elicit a brief example that describes the classification context;

Start with a database transaction. We'll look on the bright side when we meet again.

Let's say there is only room for one student in a course, and two people are seeking to sign up. What property of a database system makes it impossible for both students to be placed in the last open seat?

Using the primary key definitions from the 2NF and 3NF, order the generic definitions. Provide a complete example to support your claim.

Keeping the join as a materialized view may be handy if a parallel data store is utilized to hold two relations r and s and we need to connect them. In terms of total throughput, space use, and response time to user requests, what are the advantages and costs of this approach?

A relation r(A, B, C) had multi-valued dependencies among all its attributes. It was decomposed for achieving a better database as follows r1(A, B) r2(B, C) r3(C, A) This is an example of what kind of normalization? BCNF 4NF OPJNF DKN

1) Why may we need to decompose relations in a database system? Define lossy and lossless decompositions. When we decompose a relation, ideally, we would prefer to ensure two things. One is lossless decomposition. What is the other?