Functional Dependency | Database Management System

IMPORTANT LINKS:
Both of the above mentioned platforms are COMPLETELY FREE, so feel free to Explore, Learn, Practice & Share!

Our Social Media Links:

Last but not the least, SUBSCRIBE our YouTube channel to stay updated about the regularly uploaded new videos.

[KreeZafi]

This guy just made me understand FD's better in 5 minutes than my university teacher made me understand it in 2 hours. Thank you!!!

[RobertArends-yq]

I had to watch this video and then do some assignments. After I did those assignments I did not do well. So I came back to this video, after watching it again and seeing my professors feedback it all makes sense after that. Thank you sir!

[harryyaboi]

Still a legend after 7 years. Absolute madman.

[arritgashi]

After searching for FULL DAY I found here what I was looking for. THNX A LOT MY FRIEND YOU ARE AMAZING.

[salamjames]

You explained dependencies in 5 minutes.... God bless you bro

[behrozkarim]

Just amazing. Functional Dependencies cannot be explained any better.

[GodGod]

3:30 onwards is god like. It just explain the whole thing.

[skmughlaazam]

I don't find your some lecture's like 45, 50, 51 and many more... there another video's are uploaded.... so please help me to find out those video's... and thank you so much for that...  all lecture's are very helpful of us and its just awesome way to teach ...

[makethejumpai]

This is an extremely good explanation. Thanks!

[mariamal-kfaween]

Thank you so much. This is very clear and helpful.

[VictorChrispinSamson]

Most helpful, and straight forward explanation ever.. Thank You..

[DMerenguelli]

I think you mean that a2, a3 ----> c2    not c3   but otherwise, I like the explanation.

[scienceblossom]

Thanks this is amazing but I didn't get what you said about the "options" briefly in the end...! What are they? How are they different from Armstrong axioms?

[mrshubh]

Do you mean to say that the mapping from A to C need not be a one-one onto function? Because in this example, the mapping is a many-to-one onto function. Can the defiinition of functional dependency be extended to the fact that the mapping between the two attributes A and C must be a function? So if mapping is simply a relation, but not a function, then A and C are not functionally dependent, yeah?

[hidayapatel]

Hello sir !! Thank you !! Amazing explaination.

[mrshubh]

If mapping of C to D is not a function, can its converse be a function? Because let's say that a slight modification of c2 not mapping to d2, then d1and d2 maps to c1, d3 and d4 map to c2. So, if C doesn't functionally determine D, can D functionally determine C (considering the modification)?

[OssimBrian]

So based on the entity given in this video, the primary key would be D, as A>C, B>C, C>A, D>B, Therefore D>B>C>A, right?

[-zerenity-]

Thank you sir, great rundown, very clear. Informative breakdown!

[Buof]

Daim this guy should be my uni professor

[bayleymakloski]

This all makes sense to me, but is it possible to have say A -> B and C?