For complete DBMS, check out this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4PRm3qbhsemfrM
@estableadentertainment57155 жыл бұрын
Guys!at 13:00 sir clearly mentioned that in AC->D if closure of AC and A is same then C becomes redundant. And also if we solve taking W->X it then holds transitivity with V->W , making the actual result V->X. Which directly comes by eliminating W rather than V.
@sohamaditya49575 ай бұрын
whats up bro
@kusumjoshi81404 жыл бұрын
No one can teach like you sir...you teach in a very easy way...its great
@AshisRaj4 жыл бұрын
Sir you are not less than Saint whose selfless efforts is for us
@aaa_1711 Жыл бұрын
Hello everyone, what is the correct procedure of finding redundancy on the LHS??? Actually in older video(3.8) and present video sir has taken different steps, in previous video: while checking if there's any redundancy on LHS at 11:35, sir has ignored one functional dependency which was "wz=>y"... But in the present video in the same method, at 19:45, sir has not ignored "vw=>x". And if we do not ignore "vw=>x", we get a different result.. What is the correct way!!!
@abhijithkannan643 Жыл бұрын
if you have got the answer for this question, kindly share with me also
@aaa_1711 Жыл бұрын
@@abhijithkannan643 no reply from anyone yet bro🙁
@ANUSHKAVARPE-v6q Жыл бұрын
Any solution??
@pastelteaaniiii Жыл бұрын
According to what I understood and answer is turning to be correct: We check the LHS only after checking all the RHS so if an FD has survived the RHS round only then it can go for LHS round. In LHS round we check those FDs which have multiple attributes instead of single ones for redundancy. So in LHS we do not need to "ignore" the whole FD since we already did that in RHS. In short don't follow "ignore" method in RHS. In RHS just find closure vw with new set of FDS(means without y-->x since that got crossed in RHS round) that will be v,w,x Then find closure of v without any ignoring and same with w. Since v can give all the attributes same as vw so w is not needed.
@anushka_varpe Жыл бұрын
@@pastelteaaniiiiOkk.. Thanks!
@developersfeed4 жыл бұрын
In the second numerical you have told wrong while finding the redundancy in VW->X. When you were finding the closure of V u considered the Functional dependency VW->X so the answer is wrong. The correct answer is V->W, VW->X and Y->VZ.
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg4 жыл бұрын
Please post your questions on our Official discussion forum t.me/KnowledgeGATE_forum
@rishikumarvirenkumarmehta96353 жыл бұрын
Yes.....same ans
@krishan.barnwal3 жыл бұрын
I am noticed same problem please confirmed is your answer correct or not?
@hermionegranger7849 Жыл бұрын
Confidently incorrect
@PrashantSharma-cc9nbАй бұрын
this is correct, sir ne second numerical wrong solve kiya hain, woh bhul gye ki pehle wale numerical main unhone dependency ko ignore karke closure calcualte karna btaya hain.
@sivakrishnanj95446 жыл бұрын
There is problem sir, y+=yvxzw is right, Not y+=yvxzx
@prof_as6 жыл бұрын
yes i also observe the same
@tanaybalraj29995 жыл бұрын
Correct sir
@saumyojitdas42125 жыл бұрын
Y>x should not be removed??
@ashaykamdar46535 жыл бұрын
Yes sir ..he is right there is a mistake
@Himanshu-jx9kw4 жыл бұрын
Yes there is mistake there
@bhanupratapshishodia30272 жыл бұрын
Thanks sir aap bhot achcha pdate ho
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg2 жыл бұрын
Most welcome dear student, keep learning & supporting !! Do visit our website www.knowledgegate.in for more courses & contents !!
@md.yasinali59592 жыл бұрын
wish if we could have these videos in our student life or in our 30's .
@shikshitkumarverma42985 жыл бұрын
Thankkuu so much sir maza a gaya jis tarika s aap hame padhate ho and practice krba t ho 👏👏🖒
@shivangsaini3940 Жыл бұрын
Thank you sir, You are 5th sem saviour for me. ❣️❣️ Even after 4 years your teching technique is so unique.....
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for your valuable feedback ❤Keep learning & supporting! Do visit our website www.knowledgegate.in for more amazing courses & contents 👍😊
@akashmittal77955 жыл бұрын
sir, devta ho aap 🙏🙏
@muhammadkamran42553 жыл бұрын
lot of respect from Gilgit Baltistan
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg3 жыл бұрын
Thank you.. keep learning !!
@sonalsharma72976 жыл бұрын
Please upload video on this topic Lossless Join and Dependency Preserving Decomposition
@samlee41465 жыл бұрын
in last lecture u said while calculating u ignore the term,here in 2nd question u didnt do tht...due to which v+=vwx,if u ignore the relation u wiill get v+=vw...making it non reduntant...
@arshanjada29855 жыл бұрын
Same doubt
@preetyparamanick2 жыл бұрын
when you calculate the redundancy of left sight you do not need to ignore anything, sir said it in previous video
@ThePRINCEBARPAGA5 жыл бұрын
I think correct answer should be: V->W, W->X (because we removed V as it was redundant), Y->VZ
@TwaritWaikar5 жыл бұрын
Yes, this is also what I am getting. Thanks
@killadakalyanilakshmiprasa8354 жыл бұрын
While finding redundancy in left-hand side do we need to ignore or not....I mean, while checking for redundancy in (VW)--->X while finding V+ and W+ should we ignore (VW)--->X or not
@arinjain25 Жыл бұрын
I also have the same doubt tomorrow is my exam, can u please tel weather we have to ignore it or not while checking?
@abhijithkannan643 Жыл бұрын
if you had received the correct answer for this doubt kindly share
@Sankalp-sd6fmАй бұрын
sir has taught this part wrong in both the videos
@nikhilnaudiyal70823 жыл бұрын
Apse acha koi ni
@rupeshshete61623 жыл бұрын
Minimal set of fd is affected by an order in which you are checking redundancy
@monisuvais46 жыл бұрын
while checking rhs in second ques while checking v closure you have also checked with vw->x but in previous video of canonical cover you said to ignore that fd in which we are checking....it's creating confusion
@ashishpajapati80326 жыл бұрын
yes same question
@kirtideshmukh52196 жыл бұрын
Same question
@devashishpawar1666 жыл бұрын
same ques
@NitinSingh-cs6lp6 жыл бұрын
Yes...how?
@addictedtosuccess016 жыл бұрын
I also believe there is some confusion. The correct answer should be V->W, VW->X, Y->VZ
@kartickchandramanna2672 жыл бұрын
Awesome lecture 👍 Thank you sir 🙏❤️
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg2 жыл бұрын
Most welcome dear 😍Keep learning & supporting ! Do visit our website www.knowledgegate.in for more amazing courses & contents 👍😊
@rhaegal77493 жыл бұрын
A->BC , B->AC ,C->AB will not work by this method . or we need to find specific sequence to implement this method . correct me if i am wrong.
@nishchaymohan20837 ай бұрын
love you sir , kya padhaya
@rajatgupta60436 жыл бұрын
Amazing....,sir plz upload videos on locking protocols as soon as possible
@272_abhishekkumar74 жыл бұрын
In the first example we get D-AC & AC-D , so by using transitivity can we write D-D, If we can write that does D-D signifies anything or it is just said to be trivial functional dependency?
@anubhav10203 жыл бұрын
It would be just trivial and wont make any sense.
@wasifansari6476 жыл бұрын
your videos helped me a lot sir 😊😊
@chandrakalat81785 жыл бұрын
Canonical cover for A-C,AC-D,E-AD,E-H
@PANKAJKUMAR-fe8zn6 жыл бұрын
your teaching method and example clicks very well but my college professors not.....
@NishaSharma-nd1dk3 жыл бұрын
Thanks sir g
@deepshikharajput50696 жыл бұрын
sir ur videos are really awesome . can u plz make lectures on relational algebra.
@jellyfish17722 жыл бұрын
13:15 why didnt you ignore AC->D sir? Whats the reason? In the past video for a similar case you ignored WZ->Y. But why not now?
@lalchandyogi11774 ай бұрын
did you got the answer??
@jellyfish17724 ай бұрын
@@lalchandyogi1177 2 years man. I Don't remember now😂
@Palatard Жыл бұрын
Please tag the English videos. The ones where you at least explain in English as well as Hindi are very clear but it's hard to find them.
@sscknight5 жыл бұрын
Great sir thank you so much
@ranjeetkumarrana47596 жыл бұрын
Thanks sir ...you are great
@prof_as6 жыл бұрын
sir there is a problem at 18:07 y⁺=vxzw not y⁺=yvxzx and yₓ⁺=yvzwx and by this what is the correct answer
@prof_as6 жыл бұрын
plz reply
@swetarani84263 жыл бұрын
same ans
@Ankit-we8ym6 жыл бұрын
b and b+ trees sir
@utkarshshrivastav54783 жыл бұрын
Sir, if we cannot decompose lhs. Then why are we computing the closure of lhs and eliminating it? Indirectly we are decomposing itself right?
@vanshikagarg67683 жыл бұрын
sir last q me aapne v closure nikala h at 19:52 usme x ni ayega therefore both v and x are essential
@vanshikagarg67683 жыл бұрын
why u didn't ignore vw at the time of finding closure of v
@askariaziz41634 жыл бұрын
very useful videos
@CodeWithKal6 жыл бұрын
namaskaar donston mein hun sanchittt.........My favourite lineeeeee
@cybercopashu4 жыл бұрын
Too good sir...👌👌👍👍
@nitinmodi71994 жыл бұрын
If to remove the redundancy on the LHS with five terms ABCDE->X,do we need to have 2^5-1 iteration
@RohitKumar-qt2nm6 жыл бұрын
plzz upload B+ tree and locking protocols
@rachnagoyal38536 жыл бұрын
Sir how to find out the number of different minimal cover possible..plz make a video related to this...
@viharcontractor16796 жыл бұрын
You're a savior!
@VikashKumar-bh5yh5 жыл бұрын
The answer of the last discussed question will be v->wx and y->v ....
@sakshirathoree29084 жыл бұрын
sir in last question redundancy is due to 'v' not 'w'.... please checkk
@madhurmungra53623 жыл бұрын
i think you are right. but i am still confused
@abhishekhirve46084 жыл бұрын
Hi can you please explain R(ABCDEFG) A--> B , ABCD-->EG,ACDF-->E ?
@pintulakra19924 жыл бұрын
A-->B ABCD-->EG
@The.Jaynish3 жыл бұрын
Thanks lot sir, This helped a lot in exam
@MrSunnychadha3 жыл бұрын
Plz help me getting the minimal functional dependency F = {A -> BCE, AB -> DE, BI -> J}.
@sangramjitchakraborty78453 жыл бұрын
I think {A -> BCDE, BI -> J}
@lovefrommars74684 жыл бұрын
Thank you sir
@suchitrapathak73916 жыл бұрын
C to b will also be redundant na cozzz we could derive d to b at that time
@narendraparmar16316 жыл бұрын
Thanks very much sir😆
@vedkerkar4593 Жыл бұрын
just an hour left for my exam and watching this at 2x. Thankyou ❤
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg Жыл бұрын
You're welcome 😊 All the best👍😊
@surajitkundu1205 Жыл бұрын
Sir, can I use vw->x rules in the closer of v+ 19:48 ? Please reply me ASAP..
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg Жыл бұрын
Dear @Surajit, we're already using vw->x rule in the closer of v+. That's how we derived x.
@maheshbhairi75132 жыл бұрын
iam getting ans : V-->W, W-->X, Y-->VZ
@prashantrana18925 жыл бұрын
What is minimal set of functional dependencies
@samyakkumarsahoo87064 жыл бұрын
In closure of VW=VWX , what will be the the outcome if V=VWX AND W=VWX?
@ankithanaik33274 жыл бұрын
W
@anshshrivastava91073 жыл бұрын
2:51 X ke hone na hone se kuch fark nahi pda, X extra hi thi. Hence proved XD
@ayushiydvKG5 ай бұрын
21:25 why we eliminated W? not V?? did'nt get this point.
@shahbajkhan5552 жыл бұрын
LHS me kya krna hai smjh me nhi aya hai sir redundancy kaise hategi usme confusion horhi hai
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg2 жыл бұрын
🔥Complete DBMS by Sanchit Sir: tiny.cc/DBMS_Sanchitsir_kg 🔥🔥All Computer Science Subjects by Sanchit Sir: tiny.cc/CSbundle_dbms_kg
@RaviSingh-yf6jd5 жыл бұрын
Thanks sir but also upload software engineering artificial intelligence as UGC net point of view thanks again sir
@amanchouhan28024 жыл бұрын
wrong in second step...it should be y+->yxvwz
@MeraAllah31246 жыл бұрын
Sir apne previous video me kaha tha ki closure same nikle par first wali f.d ko remove krte h... Or es video me apne bad wali f.d ko remove kia... Confusion... Please make me correct
@debagnikroy94505 жыл бұрын
as per this question agar previous vdo ka technique use kare toh answer me 'w' reh ja raha hai... thats wrong So ye wala method hi sahi hoga i guess... and this method works in the previous example too.
@faiqariaz80986 жыл бұрын
Sir, Can we apply other inference rules in the last step other than union rule if applicable?
@ParthVikani6 жыл бұрын
@Knowledge gate:. Sir, Did you upload videos for relational algebra?
@DeepakChauhan-gb3tf6 жыл бұрын
I guess No
@Coolnaruto21210 ай бұрын
Thank you sir
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg10 ай бұрын
You are welcome Rohit! Keep learning & supporting! Do visit our website www.knowledgegate.in for more amazing videos & contents👍😊
@good1142 жыл бұрын
💕❤️❤️💕
@jitendrakumar-lh9xu4 жыл бұрын
Board se thoda hatke khade hua kijiye sir
@pratikmodi18386 жыл бұрын
in the last step of the 2nd question v closure is same as vx closure and w ka closure is different . Then v should be redundant as it is same and should not be part of solution . Can u please clarify this ??. Thanks
@rajnigupta84366 жыл бұрын
Pratik Modi actually I have this doubt too, but then I understand it carefully than I found that the clousre of vw and v is same which is vwx. So w does not play any role there, because with w, we have the same clousre and without w , we also have the same clousre.
@dakujaisingh6 жыл бұрын
Pratik Modi what happened here is that for reducing the left hand side of dependency we find if any of the attribute among the given set of attribute can have same closure . Agar same hota hai then dusra wala attribute jo hai it is of no use kyuki mereko toh pehle attribute se hi mil jaa rha hai same value
@rajnigupta84366 жыл бұрын
Ab's la comedia see, A batsman took 2 balls to hit a 6, and a batsman took 1 ball to hit a six, then whom will you prefer to reduce the energy and time, offcourse the batsman with 1 ball. In the same way, VW and V has same clousre , but to reduce the redundancy we consider only V , not VW. Also, in Fxn Dependency, Logics in LHS and RHS are different , which you already learnt from that we can apply the Decomposition rule in RHS but not in LHS
@dakujaisingh6 жыл бұрын
Rajni Gupta I guess virtually we said same 😊
@PrashantSingh-oj5ez5 жыл бұрын
thnks alot both of uh😊
@manish26845 жыл бұрын
Sir either Complete us leave us....
@pawanjakke73924 жыл бұрын
Y+ is written wrong sir
@tirtheshpawar96146 жыл бұрын
Mistake at 18:01 pls check and correct
@demmogorgonx5 жыл бұрын
so at 14:32 ? AC--> D, and D --> AC, Can we not make one of them redundant? as they are basically the same dependencies but flipped the other way ?
@antarbasu53424 жыл бұрын
18:13 sir you are doing wrong.
@utkarshdevgan61995 жыл бұрын
watch on 1.5x playback speed thank me later!
@mk677hd5 жыл бұрын
2X is even better
@abhishekvanenooru28696 ай бұрын
while removing redundant function the only thing important was you
@KOTHAMASUKARTHIKBCI4 жыл бұрын
sir please explain in english
@zzxoto41865 жыл бұрын
your method would not work for finding minimal cover set of the following f.d.s {B -> A , D -> A, AB -> D}.
@dharmikdave68265 жыл бұрын
The answer should be B -> AD and D -> A
@abhishekjain88695 жыл бұрын
Atleast try to reply your viewers . You made a point in last step of second question which contradicts what you said in previous video
@adityalahiri45295 жыл бұрын
be grateful that he even makes the videos. he is a teacher. I suggest you be more respectful.
@lintaolu82026 жыл бұрын
Did he speak English?
@adityalahiri45295 жыл бұрын
no, he spoke in hindi.
@krupalshah85266 жыл бұрын
Bot sala
@TimePass-dn1rd4 жыл бұрын
Sir can we combine ac to bd ?
@ektabansal5332 Жыл бұрын
thank you sir
@KNOWLEDGEGATE_kg Жыл бұрын
You're welcome dear @Ekta😍Keep learning & supporting! Do visit our website www.knowledgegate.in for more amazing videos & contents👍