Normalization Target — Addressing Modification Anomalies In practice, when modification anomalies are significant, to which normal form are tables most often normalized to effectively control redundancy and anomalies?

Introduction:
Modification anomalies (insertion, update, and deletion anomalies) stem from redundancy and partial or transitive dependencies. Designers commonly normalize schemas to reduce these problems while balancing complexity and performance. This question asks which normal form is most frequently the practical target.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• 1NF removes repeating groups and enforces atomic values.
• 2NF removes partial dependencies on composite keys.
• 3NF removes transitive dependencies on non-key attributes.

Concept / Approach:
Most business schemas reach a robust balance at 3NF: it removes both partial and transitive dependencies, achieving low redundancy with manageable joins. While BCNF is stricter, achieving it may introduce additional tables or constraints that are not always necessary for typical workloads.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Evaluate anomalies: if transitive dependencies exist, 2NF is insufficient.2) Elevate to 3NF to eliminate transitive dependencies.3) Confirm that most practical designs stop at 3NF unless specific determinants violate BCNF.

Verification / Alternative check:
Design handbooks and academic texts frequently position 3NF as the common endpoint for OLTP schemas due to its favorable cost-benefit ratio.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• 1NF / 2NF: Do not fully address transitive dependencies.
• BCNF / 4NF: Sometimes desirable but can be unnecessarily strict for routine systems.

Common Pitfalls:
Stopping at 2NF and leaving transitive dependencies, which continue to cause anomalies.

Final Answer:
3NF