Re: thinking about UPDATE

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message news:pan.2004.07.27.17.33.30.451062_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be...

> Of course, but I'm not starting with *any* relation. To show the type
> of completeness that we are dealing with here it is sufficient to show
> that for every set A of attributes that is not derived by the algorithm
> there is a relation that satisifies the initial set of candidate keys and
> in whose projection A is not a candidate key. Since the only restriction
> is that it satisfies the original set of candidate keys I'm free to assume
> that the only FDs that hold for it are those that are implied by these
> candidate keys.

Oh, that completeness.
It would have been easier if you stated that one need to know all the constraints on the relation to determine the candidate keys (not a superkey). Are you aware of any algorithm that solve this problem ? What is the complexity of it ?

> You are right that I oversimplified the proof, but my goal was to
> get you thinking about it, and it seems to have worked. :-)

I'm glad.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=