The Use Of Keys Is Instrumental In Database Management

The Use Of Keys Are Instrumental In Database Management Primary Keys

The use of keys are instrumental in database management. Primary keys allow for distinct records and foreign keys tie records together to create unique relationships between two or more entities and/or tables. In Blockchain, we know that a hash is the equivalent to a key - and makes the chain secure and indisputable (or so we think). Why is it then that with an RDBMS, a primary key and foreign key can still create redundancy, thereby causing data anomalies? Can the same be said about blockchain?

Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS) heavily rely on primary keys and foreign keys to establish and maintain structured relationships between data sets. Primary keys uniquely identify each record within a table, ensuring entity integrity, while foreign keys facilitate referential integrity by linking related records across tables. However, despite their utility, the use of these keys can sometimes lead to redundancy and data anomalies. This paradox arises mainly due to improper database design, such as lack of normalization, or incomplete enforcement of integrity constraints, which can result in duplicated data, inconsistent entries, and anomalies like update, insert, or delete anomalies (Codd, 1970). For example, if a database is not properly normalized, the same piece of data could be stored multiple times across different tables, leading to redundancy even with primary and foreign key constraints in place. Additionally, in collaborative environments where multiple users have editing rights, failure to enforce strict integrity constraints can lead to inconsistent data entries, defeating the purpose of primary and foreign keys (Date, 2003).

On the other hand, blockchain technology employs cryptographic hashing as its fundamental mechanism for ensuring data integrity and security. Hash functions in blockchain, such as SHA-256, generate unique fixed-length strings that represent data blocks. These hashes act as digital fingerprints for the data, theoretically making the blockchain tamper-proof because any alteration in the data would produce a different hash, alerting participants of potential fraud (Nakamoto, 2008). Nevertheless, while hashes secure the chain and prevent unauthorized modifications, they do not inherently prevent data redundancy. Blockchain systems can still contain duplicate transactions or data records if the protocol does not explicitly prohibit them through consensus rules or smart contracts. Nonetheless, the decentralized and immutable nature of blockchain reduces the likelihood of anomalies similar to those in relational databases, because the need for synchronization and consistency is enforced through consensus mechanisms rather than relational constraints (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016).

In conclusion, primary and foreign keys are vital in relational databases for organizing and maintaining data integrity but do not completely eliminate redundancy or anomalies, mainly due to design flaws or improper implementation. Blockchain, while using cryptographic hashes that resemble keys, offers a different security paradigm rooted in decentralization and consensus, which inherently limits data inconsistencies but does not inherently prevent data duplication unless explicitly programmed within smart contracts or consensus rules. Both systems utilize 'key-like' mechanisms to secure and relate data, yet their fundamentally different architectures influence how they handle redundancy and anomalies.

Paper For Above instruction

Relational databases and blockchain technology serve as two pivotal systems for data storage and management, each employing mechanisms akin to keys for ensuring data integrity and security. In relational databases, primary keys uniquely identify each record within a table, facilitating efficient data retrieval and establishing relationships with other tables via foreign keys. These keys are essential for maintaining structure and referential integrity; however, their effectiveness can be compromised if the database design neglects normalization or proper constraint enforcement, leading to redundancy and data anomalies. Redundancy occurs when the same data is stored multiple times, increasing storage costs and risking inconsistencies, especially in environments lacking strict integrity checks (Codd, 1970). Data anomalies such as update, insert, or delete anomalies are side effects of poorly designed schemas, which compromise the reliability of data (Date, 2003). For example, without normalization, duplicated customer information might exist across multiple tables, causing discrepancies during updates or deletions. Proper database design, including normalization forms and strict enforcement of constraints, can minimize these issues but cannot eliminate them entirely.

In contrast, blockchain technology leverages cryptographic hashes to secure data blocks within a chain. Hash functions like SHA-256 produce a unique fingerprint for each data block, making the chain tamper-proof because any change in the data results in a completely different hash, alerting participants to potential unauthorized modifications (Nakamoto, 2008). This cryptographic mechanism ensures data integrity and enhances security by making it exceedingly difficult to alter data retroactively. Nonetheless, hashes in blockchain act as digital keys that bind data blocks securely; they do not inherently prevent redundancy. Unless a blockchain protocol explicitly governs data entry rules—such as in smart contracts—duplicate transactions or records could still exist. Blockchain's decentralized consensus mechanisms, however, inherently reduce the possibility of data inconsistency or anomalies common in traditional databases by ensuring agreement among network nodes before data is committed (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). The immutable and distributed nature of blockchain offers a different approach to data integrity, emphasizing fault tolerance and resistance to malicious tampering, but not necessarily preventing duplication without protocol-level constraints.

Therefore, while both relational databases and blockchain systems rely on key structures to secure and relate data, their underlying architectures lead to different implications for redundancy and anomalies. Relational databases’ keys are designed to prevent duplication but can fail if the database is not well-designed, whereas blockchain hashes ensure data security at a cryptographic level but do not inherently prevent repeated data unless specific rules are enforced. Addressing data integrity challenges in both systems requires appropriate design, implementation, and protocol rules tailored to their respective paradigms.

References

• Codd, E. F. (1970). A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6), 377-387.
• Date, C. J. (2003). An Introduction to Database Systems (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
• Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Sun, Y. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0163477.
• Wood, G. (2014). Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow Paper.
• Antonopoulos, A. M. (2017). Mastering Blockchain: Unlocking the World of Cryptocurrencies, Smart Contracts, and Decentralized Applications. O'Reilly Media.
• Yermack, D. (2017). Corporate governance and blockchains. Review of Finance, 21(1), 7-31.
• Christidis, K., & Devetsikiotis, M. (2016). Blockchains and smart contracts. IEEE Access, 4, 2292-2303.
• Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World. Penguin.
• Singh, V., & Singh, P. K. (2019). Blockchain technology: A survey on its applications. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, 31(4), 437-446.