Step 1
In your initial post, create a new relational database design that differs significantly from any previous designs you created for this class and any examples in the module’s resources. Use the notation introduced in pages 88 and 104 of the textbook. The database design should represent a design that is lower than third normal form (i.e., it should be in first or second normal form but no higher). Refer to the week’s notes and readings for information on the normal forms. Post your design to the discussion forum (by directly write on your ). Please also describe in the post body the purpose of the database you designed, together with the meaning of each table and the relationships between the tables. Reply to the discussion topic and title your reply appropriately according to the database design content.
**Note that, in order for your classmates to conduct normalization, at least one table in your database design MUST have partial and/or transitive dependencies within.
Step 2
For each of your reply posts, you have two options depending on whether you are: A. determining a normal form OR B. disagree with the normal form determinations and/or normalizations of your peers:
Option A:
Refer to the week’s notes and readings for information on how to determine a normal form and how to refactor a database design. Select a classmate’s database design and reply with the following:
1. The functional dependences of the database design (refer to the notation on page 112 of Harrington (2009)).
2. Your determination of the normal form of the design (first or second). Justify your answer.
3. Refactor the design so that it is in at least third normal form. Justify your answer and post your revised design. Keep in mind that during normalization, new foreign keys may be introduced to the table(s).
4. The new functional dependences of the refactored database.
5. Specify the relationships between the tables in your revised design.
Do not select a classmate that someone else has already picked so pick early. If you have difficulty picking a partner, contact the instructor.
Option B:
Review your classmates’ replies to your or to others’ initial posts. If you do not agree with their normal form determinations and/or normalizations, reply to your classmate with your revised database design (in at least third normal form), justify the revisions you made, and together with the revised functional dependencies. Specify the relationships between the tables in your revised design.
It’s how you justify the decisions you made that matters here. Plus, there may also be an occasion where one of your peers is simply wrong. It will be up to you to explain why. Did your revised design differ from your classmate’s? If so, how? Why? Who is right? Are you both right?
Additionally, for either option, you must also include a discussion on denormalization. In Harrington (2009, pp. 130) it says:
“Because of the processing overhead created when performing joins in this way, some database designers make a conscious decision to leave tables unnormalized.”
Come up with a case based on your classmate’s initial database design you are responding to, with examples, to illustrate 2NF might be a preferred normal form in the design.