Ask Question
8 July, 18:21

Suppose that we have the following three tuples in a legal instance of a relation

schema S with three attributes ABC (listed in order) : (1,2,3), (4,2,3), and (5,3,3).

Which of the following dependencies can you infer does not hold over schema S?

(a) A - > B, (b) BC - > A, (c) B - > C

+4
Answers (1)
  1. 8 July, 19:03
    0
    (b) BC → A

    Explanation:

    For given instance of S, certain dependencies (that is to say, A → B and B → C) can be said that they are not violated by this instance of S.

    It can be said that an FD holds with respect to a relationship is to make a claim about all appropriate instances of S.

    BC → A does not hold over S. To confirm, let's look at the tuples (1, 2, 3) and (4, 2, 3).

    Hence, the answer is (b) BC → A.
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Find an answer to your question ✅ “Suppose that we have the following three tuples in a legal instance of a relation schema S with three attributes ABC (listed in order) : ...” in 📘 Engineering if you're in doubt about the correctness of the answers or there's no answer, then try to use the smart search and find answers to the similar questions.
Search for Other Answers