Database normalization and anomalies: evaluate the claim below.\n\n"We can eliminate modification anomalies with proper normalization that results in tables in Boyce–Codd Normal Form (BCNF)."

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your understanding of database normalization, specifically Boyce–Codd Normal Form (BCNF), and its role in preventing modification anomalies. Modification anomalies include update, insert, and delete anomalies that arise when redundant data are stored due to improper schema design. The claim is that moving tables to BCNF can eliminate these anomalies.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Anomalies discussed are those caused by functional dependencies (FDs) such as A -> B creating redundancy when A and B are stored together improperly.
• BCNF requires that for every nontrivial functional dependency X -> Y, the determinant X is a superkey.
• We are evaluating logical design (schema form), not physical performance tuning or indexing.

Concept / Approach:
Moving to BCNF decomposes relations so that every determinant is a key, which removes redundancy implied by FDs. With redundancy reduced, the classic modification anomalies largely disappear: updating one fact no longer requires changing it in multiple rows; inserting facts does not depend on unrelated attributes; deleting a row does not inadvertently remove independent information. BCNF focuses on anomalies arising from FDs; higher forms (4NF, 5NF) address multivalued and join dependencies, respectively.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Compare workloads before and after normalization. After BCNF decomposition, updating a professor’s department involves a single row in a single relation rather than many scattered rows, demonstrating the elimination of FD-driven anomalies.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Invalid” or “depends on indexing”: indexing affects speed, not logical redundancy.
• “Applies only to warehouses” or “single-attribute tables”: BCNF is a general relational concept and does not require trivial schemas.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming BCNF cures all possible issues; anomalies from multivalued dependencies may require 4NF, and complex join dependencies may need 5NF. Also, some designs denormalize intentionally for performance, but that reintroduces potential anomalies.

Final Answer:
Valid (BCNF removes anomalies caused by functional dependencies)