3.1. The relational model of the database¶
In this chapter we introduce the mathematical model that relational databases are based on. The relational model of the database provides a mathematical foundation for describing and reasoning about databases. While most relational database systems in practice vary in small ways from the mathematical model (see Chapter 3.4), understanding the model facilitates a deeper understanding of these systems.
Given its mathematical foundations, the relational model is most conveniently expressed using at least some mathematical notation and terminology. In the interests of keeping this book accessible to as wide an audience as possible, however, we will give the basics of the model using a minimum of notation and explain terms as we use them.
3.1.1. Model basics¶
We start with a working definition of set, a mathematical object that we will use in defining other terms. We then define relations, the fundamental objects of the relational model, and their associated terms.
3.1.1.1. Sets¶
A set is a mathematical object that represents a collection of distinct values. Sets can be defined by some property that values have in common, or simply by listing all of the values in the set. For some arbitrary value and some set, we can ask whether the value is a member of the set, that is, whether it is one of the values in the set. For example, 2 is a member of the set of all numbers (an infinite set) and also a member of the set {1, 2, 3, 4} (a finite set containing four values). On the other hand, 2 is not a member of the set of odd integers or the set of words describing colors (i.e., {blue, yellow, …}).
A subset of a set is a set containing zero or more elements from the set and only from the set. For the set {1, 2, 3, 4}, subsets include {2, 4}, {1, 2, 3, 4}, and {} (the empty set). Note that any set is a subset of itself; a subset which is not equal to the whole set is termed a proper subset of the set.
A superset of a set is a set containing all elements from the set, and may contain elements not from the set. For the set {1, 2, 3, 4}, supersets include {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, and {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7}. Note that any set is a superset of itself; a superset which contains elements not in the set is termed a proper superset of the set.
3.1.1.2. Relations¶
In the relational model, data exist in relations. A relation is often depicted as a tabular data structure:
This illustration is just one possible way of depicting the relation simple_books, and tables (or twodimensional arrays) are just one data structure that can be used for storing relations. From the perspective of the relational model, relations are mathematical objects, not data structures.
Formally, a relation is a set of tuples that share the same domain.
3.1.1.3. Tuples¶
A tuple in the relational model is defined in two different ways; which is used depends on which is more convenient in a particular context. We will start with the normal mathematical definition of a tuple as an ordered list of values. A single value in the tuple is also called an element of the tuple. We denote tuples as a commaseparated list within parentheses. Tuples correspond to rows in the table above. For example, one tuple from the simple_books relation could be written as:
(The House of the Spirits, Isabel Allende, 1982, magical realism)
Each element of a tuple belongs to some set, which we call the domain of the element. In our example tuple, the first element belongs to the domain of book titles.
The tuple itself also belongs to a domain, which is defined in terms of the domains of each value in the tuple. Tuples of the simple_books relation belong to the domain of tuples with four elements for which the first element belongs to the domain of book titles, the second element is from the domain of authors, the third element belongs to the domain of calendar years, and the fourth element is in the domain of literary genres.
3.1.1.4. Attributes¶
In an alternate definition of tuple, we can speak of the attributes of the tuple. We can think of attributes as the named properties of the value represented by the tuple. For example, if a tuple in the simple_books relation represents one book, then one attribute of the tuple is the book’s title. In our example tuple, the title attribute is The House of the Spirits. The other attributes of books in our relation are author, year, and genre. Attribute names are shown in the header row of the table in the illustration above.
In this definition of tuple, tuples are not necessarily ordered lists; each value in the tuple is associated not with a position but with an attribute. Each attribute is associated with a domain. For example, the title attribute for any tuple in simple_books must be a member of the domain of book titles. Having names associated with values in a tuple is much more convenient than having to refer to the nth element when we want to query our database.
The two definitions of tuple are not exclusive. In the first definition of tuple, each position in the ordered collection also corresponds to a specific attribute  in our example, the first element is the title attribute. While we can think of tuples as having named attributes in no particular order, in practice we typically assign an ordering to the attributes in a relation  so both definitions of tuple are used simultaneously.
3.1.1.5. Schemas¶
A relation’s attributes and domains are defined by its schema. A relation (a set of tuples) is considered to be an instance of the relation schema if it conforms to the definition given by the schema; that is, if all of the tuples in the relation have the named attributes defined by the schema, and the attribute values are members of the correct domains. In some definitions, relation schemas also include constraints which relations must conform to, such as key constraints, discussed below.
In a typical database, each relation schema is paired with exactly one relation, which is the current relation for the schema. When a modification is made to the data in the current relation, it produces a new current relation. Except in some specialized types of databases, there is no history of past relations associated with a relation schema. Thus, it is frequent practice to use the same name for the relation and its schema.
A database may be defined as a collection of relation schemas and their associated current relations. The collection of relation schemas is called the database schema.
3.1.2. Uniqueness and permutations¶
Relations, as sets of tuples, share certain important properties of sets. First, items in a set must be distinct. In the relational model, tuples must likewise be distinct, that is, no two tuples can have the same values for every attribute. For our simple_books relation, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that we will add books that have the same author as some other tuple, or books published in the same year as another book. However, we are forbidden to add a tuple that duplicates an existing tuple.
Another property (or perhaps lack of property) of sets is that there is no defined order of elements in a set. An element of a set has no rank or position within the set. Relations likewise have no intrinsic ordering of tuples.
When we provided a tabular illustration of the simple_books relation above, we noted that it was just one possible depiction of the relation. We can, for example, permute the rows of the table, without changing the relation. If we apply the second definition of tuple above, in which values are likewise not ordered but rather associated with specific attributes, it is valid to permute columns as well. We would say, then, that the illustration of simple_books below is equivalent to our previous illustration:
3.1.3. Constraints¶
Constraints are statements about relations which are required to be true at all times. Some constraints are implicit in the definitions above; for example, the attribute values in a tuple are constrained to be members of the associated domain. The relational model also incorporates two types of explicit constraint: keys and foreign keys.
3.1.3.1. Keys and primary keys¶
In many cases, relations may contain subsets of attributes which uniquely identify tuples. For example, for our simple_books relation, we will assert that the pair of attributes author and title uniquely identify any book in our relation, or any book we might choose to add to our relation in the future. On the other hand, neither author nor title are sufficient on their own to uniquely identify a book  it is possible for two different authors to create books with the same name, and of course, many books may have the same author. We state that the set {author, title} is a key for the simple_books relation.
Keys play an important part in relational theory, as we will see. One implication that we will explore further in a later chapter is that no two tuples in our simple_books relation (now or ever) can share the exact same author and title values. In fact, the assertion that no two tuples can share the same author and title in return implies that author and title together uniquely identify any book. The assertions are equivalent.
It is important to emphasize that the key property is a fact we are stating about the world, not a transitory property of the data in a relation. For example, our current simple_books illustration shows no duplicate values for year. For year to be a key, though, requires that year never contain duplicates for any collection of books we might store in the simple_books relation. Since many books are published every year, we should expect to accumulate duplicate year values if we add books to the relation.
Relations may have more than one key. A common example is that of a table of employees for a company. In many countries, workers must have a government issued identification (ID) number. These numbers can be used to uniquely identify an employee. However, these numbers are often considered sensitive employee data, which should only be shared with certain trusted individuals in the company. In these cases, companies will generate an internal employee ID number, which is completely independent of the government issued ID. The company’s database will contain both of these unique identifiers.
The keys of a relation are also known as candidate keys. One candidate key is chosen as the primary key for the relation. The remaining keys are sometimes called unique keys.
In the relational model, all keys are constrained to be unique. If a set of tuples contains duplicate values for some key according to some relation schema (e.g., the same author and title per the simple_books schema), we do not consider that a valid relation of the schema.
3.1.3.2. Foreign keys¶
Relational databases do not explicitly store connections between related records. Instead, we must store values in one relation which we can use to “look up” related values in another relation. In a properly designed relational database, we will nearly always store values from the primary key of the related relation. The attribute or group of attributes storing the key from the other relation is called a foreign key.
Consider the relation simple_authors represented below:
Our primary key for this relation is the name attribute. Names are generally not a very good choice for keys, as people often share a name with other people, but this is just a simple illustration and not intended to be an example of good database design.
Because every author value in simple_books matches some name value in simple_authors, we can connect each book to information about its author. To assert that it should always be true that any tuple in simple_books matches a tuple in simple_authors, we declare the author attribute of simple_books to be a foreign key referencing the name attribute of simple_authors. This foreign key constraint applies not only to the current relations, but to any future states of simple_books and simple_authors. Foreign keys are also known as referential integrity constraints.
Note that the foreign key is a constraint on both relations; certain changes in either relation could result in a constraint violation. The constraint is not symmetric, however; we can have authors listed in simple_authors for whom no books are listed in simple_books.
3.1.3.3. Consistency¶
A database in which constraints are violated is considered inconsistent. A relational database system is expected to enforce consistency and prevent any data modification operations which would violate constraints. Consistency helps ensure that we get good answers from our queries, or at least helps us avoid certain common problems. For example, guaranteeing unique ID values in an employee relation prevents potential issues from confusing two employees, such as issuing two paychecks to the same person (and none to another person). Foreign key constraints can prevent meaningless results when data in one relation refers to nonexistent data in another relation.
3.1.4. Modification operations¶
The relational model assumes that a relation may be modified with one of three operations: tuples may be added (inserted) into the relation, values within tuples may be modified (updated) without adding or removing the tuple, or tuples may be removed (deleted) from the relation. The state of the database must be consistent with all constraints after modification, or the operation must be rejected by the database system. In certain cases (such as the existence of a circular foreign key relationship), it may be necessary to group multiple modifications together with a transaction; constraints may be temporarily violated within the context of the transaction, but must be resolved when all operations have been completed, or none of the operations may take effect.
Insertion operations can violate primary and unique key constraints on a relation if the tuple being inserted contains values that duplicate another tuple already in the relation. Insertion operations can also violate foreign key constraints on a relation if a value is provided for a foreign key attribute that does not exist in the referenced table. For example, each of the tuples below would violate constraints if added to the simple_books relation (assuming the primary and foreign keys discussed in the text above):
(The House of the Spirits, Isabel Allende, 1999, history)
(A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin, 1968, fantasy)
In the first case, this author and title already exists in the simple_books relation. In the second case, the author is not present in the simple_authors relation.
Deletions, on the other hand, can never violate primary or unique key constraints. A deletion in one relation can violate a foreign key constraint, however, if a foreign key value in another relation references the deleted key being deleted. For example, we may not delete from simple_authors the tuple:
(Ralph Ellison, 19140301, 19940416)
This author has a book in the simple_books table.
Updates can create any of the constraint violations described above. For example, an update which changes the value of a primary key must not change the value such that it would duplicate another tuple’s primary key. Similarly, if a foreign key value in another relation depends on the primary key value being updated, then the update cannot proceed. Finally, an update may not change a foreign key value to something which is not in the referenced table.
3.1.5. NULL¶
In the simple_authors relation shown earlier, two of the entries show no value for the attribute death, which is because those two authors are still living. If we consider the domain of the death attribute to be the domain of calendar dates, then there is truly no value we can choose that accurately represents the situation. Instead, we are using a special placeholder to represent the absence of information. In the relational model, that placeholder is called NULL.
The nature of NULL, and in fact, its very presence in the relational model, is controversial. Some database scholars treat NULL as a special value that is included with every domain. So we can say that we have put a NULL value in our table for the death attribute for each living author. However, NULL exhibits special properties that make it problematic as a value, such as the fact that it cannot be compared with other values, including other NULLs  more on this in a bit. For this reason, other scholars prefer to treat NULL as a special state of the attribute; we can say that the death attribute for an author is in a null state when the author is living. Finally, some scholars reject NULL entirely as fundamentally incompatible with relational theory.
The problem NULL was created to solve is the problem of missing information. Information may be unknown for many reasons: it may be that nobody knows the true value, or it may have been simply overlooked when entering data into the database, or any number of other causes. Data may be irrelevant or inapplicable, as in the example of the death date for living authors. Researchers have identified many different meanings that can be ascribed to NULL, which has led some scholars to propose additional placeholders instead of just one (although some of those proposals were intended to highlight the problems with NULL, rather than improve the model). The problem is, the definition of a tuple requires there to be something associated with every attribute defined in the relation schema; even if nothing from the domain is appropriate, the tuple cannot simply be incomplete.
While there are alternatives to the use of NULL, the alternatives are problematic in their own ways. Most database systems based on the relational model include support for NULL. For these reasons, NULL is an important part of our discussion of the relational model.
3.1.5.1. Threevalued logic¶
Many operations on relations make use of Boolean logic and the usual operations on logical expressions. There are only two values in Boolean logic: true and false. The basic Boolean operators are easy to understand and apply. The NOT operation simply inverts the Boolean value: “NOT true” equals false, and “NOT false” equals true [1]. Given two Boolean values, a and b, the expression “a AND b” yields true if and only if a is true and b is true. On the other hand, the expression “a OR b” is true if a is true or b is true, and is false only if both a and b are false.
However, when NULL is used in most expressions, it is unknown whether the answer is true or false. For example, the expression “2 = x”, where x is assigned NULL (or is in the null state, if you prefer) cannot be determined to be true or false. The problem is that NULL is not a distinct value of its own, but represents the absence of information altogether. Thus, we do not know if x equals 2 or something else. Even the expression “x = y”, where both x and y are NULL cannot be determined to be true or false!
The solution is to enhance Boolean logic with a third value, unknown, giving a threevalued logic. With so many combinations, it is easiest to summarize the results of AND, OR, and NOT operations with the following tables:
a 
b 
a AND b 
a OR b 

true 
true 
true 
true 
true 
false 
false 
true 
true 
unknown 
unknown 
true 
false 
true 
false 
true 
false 
false 
false 
false 
false 
unknown 
false 
unknown 
unknown 
true 
unknown 
true 
unknown 
false 
false 
unknown 
unknown 
unknown 
unknown 
unknown 
a 
NOT a 

true 
false 
false 
true 
unknown 
unknown 
It is not necessary to memorize these tables, if some common sense is applied. Consider the expression “a OR b”, and let b be unknown. To determine the result of “a OR b”, we simply need to consider whether or not we have enough information without knowing the value of b. In fact, if a is true, it does not matter if b is true or false  the result “a OR b” is true. Thus “true OR unknown” equals true. On the other hand, if a is false, then it really does matter whether b is true or false; since we don’t know, the result “a OR b” is unknown. A similar thought process can be applied to the other operations.
3.1.5.2. Constraints and NULL¶
With NULL in our model, we must make some small adjustments to our rules regarding constraints. First, we must further constrain all primary key attributes to never be NULL. Remember that a primary key should be an identifier for tuples in a relation, and every tuple must have a unique primary key value. However, if NULL is present in any primary key attribute for some tuple, it is impossible to search for and find the tuple  any attempt to compare the primary key with a lookup value gives an unknown result. We likewise cannot properly enforce uniqueness, because we cannot compare a tuple with NULL in the primary key with other tuples to determine if they are distinct from one another.
Second, we modify the rule for a foreign key. The new rule is that a foreign key may be NULL, otherwise it must match a value in the referenced table. Allowing NULL in a foreign key may seem surprising, but considering our example relations, how might we handle a book for whom the author is unknown (anonymous)? If NULL is not allowed for the author, then we cannot add the book to simple_books without some matching record in the simple_authors table. However, what is the meaning of a record in the simple_authors table for an unknown author? (Note also we cannot have a NULL name for the author in simple_authors due to the primary key.) While there are multiple ways to approach this problem, allowing NULL for the author is one possible solution.
3.1.6. Selfcheck exercises¶
This section has some questions you can use to check your understanding of the relational model of the database.

Q1: Drag the term to its matching definition.
 set
 A collection of distinct values
 relation
 A set of tuples from the same domain
 attribute
 A named property of a tuple
 domain
 A set of values which attribute values belong to
 relation schema
 A definition of the attributes and domains of a relation
An ordered collection of values; each position in the tuple is associated with a domain.

This is one definition.
A set of values associated with a named attribute; each attribute is associated with a domain.

This is one definition.
Either or both of the above definitions may be used, depending on the context.

Correct.
Q2: What is the definition of tuple as used in the relational model?
A collection of tuples in order by primary key value. Each tuple must be unique and have the same number and types of attributes.

Relations have no intrinsic ordering.
A collection of tuples in no particular order. Each tuple must be unique and have the same number and types of attributes.

Correct.
A collection of tuples in no particular order, possibly with duplicates. Each tuple must have the same number and types of attributes.

Tuples in a relation must be distinct, that is, there cannot be duplicate tuples.
A collection of tuples in no particular order. Each tuple must be unique. Each tuple has its own attributes, which may differ from tuple to tuple.

Tuples in a relation must come from the same domain of tuples; that is, each tuple shares the same definition in terms of attributes and associated domains.
Q3: Which of these best describes a relation?
The next four questions concern the two relations pictured below, which map ISO (International Organization for Standardization) country codes to country names and ISO currency codes, and currency codes to the name of the currency. The primary key for countries is country_code, and the primary key for currencies is currency_code. The principal_currency_code column in countries is a foreign key referencing currency_code in currencies. Obviously this represents a subset of available data, for space reasons.
Primary key on the countries relation.

Correct.
Primary key on the countries relation and the foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

DKK is a currency code in the currencies relation.
Foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

DKK is a currency code in the currencies relation.
No constraints would be violated.

Incorrect.
Q4: What constraint or constraints would be violated if we insert the tuple (DK, Danmark, DKK) into the countries relation?
Primary key on the countries relation.

No, the country_code column will still contain unique, nonnull entries.
Primary key on the countries relation and the foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

No, the country_code column will still contain unique, nonnull entries, and all principal_currency_code values still match values in the currencies relation.
Foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

No, all principal_currency_code values still match values in the currencies relation.
No constraints would be violated.

Correct.
Q5: What constraint or constraints would be violated if we delete the tuple (AU, Australia, AUD) from the countries relation?
Primary key on the currencies relation.

No, the currency_code column will still contain unique, nonnull entries.
Primary key on the currencies relation and the foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

No, the currency_code column will still contain unique, nonnull entries.
Foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

Correct. The entry for Thailand in countries will have a principal_currency_code that is not matched by anything in the currencies relation.
No constraints would be violated.

Incorrect.
Q6: What constraint or constraints would be violated if we delete the tuple (THB, Baht) from the currencies relation?
Primary key on the currencies relation.

No, ARS is distinct from the currency codes previously in the table.
Primary key on the currencies relation and the foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

No, ARS is distinct from the currency codes previously in the table, and the foreign key constrains principal_currency_code values to be in the currency_code column of currencies, but not viceversa.
Foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

No, the foreign key constrains principal_currency_code values to be in the currency_code column of currencies, but not viceversa.
No constraints would be violated.

Correct.
Q7: What constraint or constraints would be violated if we insert the tuple (ARS, Argentine Peso) into the currencies relation?
Primary key on the countries relation.

No, AQ is distinct from the country codes previously in the table.
Primary key on the countries relation and the foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

No, AQ is distinct from the country codes previously in the table. The principal_currency_code value is NULL, which is allowed under the definition of a foreign key.
Foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

No, the principal_currency_code value is NULL, which is allowed under the definition of a foreign key.
No constraints would be violated.

Correct.
Q8: What constraint or constraints would be violated if we insert the tuple (AQ, Antarctica, NULL) into the countries relation? (Yes, Antarctica is technically not a country, but they do have an ISO country code.)
Primary key on the currencies relation.

True, but might another constraint be violated?
Primary key on the currencies relation and the foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

Correct. DKK duplicates an existing currency code in currencies, and the change would also remove AUD from the list of currencies, which is referenced by two rows in countries.
Foreign key constraint on principal_currency_code.

True, but might another constraint be violated?
No constraints would be violated.

Incorrect.
Q9: What constraint or constraints would be violated if we modify the tuple (AUD, Australian Dollar) in currencies to be (DKK, Australian Dollar)?

Q10: Drag the expression to the outcome of its evaluation.
 true AND unknown
 unknown
 true OR unknown
 true
 false AND true
 false

Q11: Drag the expression to the outcome of its evaluation.
 NOT false
 true
 unknown AND false
 false
 false OR unknown
 unknown
❏
Notes