An organization uses improperly normalized tables. Every inventory item also includes vendor information. Which anomaly does this scenario reflect?

An organization uses improperly normalized tables. Every inventory item also includes vendor information. Which anomaly does this scenario reflect?

• A. Insert anomaly
• B. Delete anomaly
• C. Update anomaly
• D. Key anomaly

Answer: (C)

When data about a vendor is stored in every inventory record, any change to that vendor’s details must be made in many places. If one row is missed, the same vendor ends up with inconsistent information across the database. That fragility is the hallmark of an update anomaly. Normalizing by moving vendor details into a separate table and linking items to vendors with an ID prevents this duplication, so a single update suffices. An insertion anomaly would show up if you couldn’t add a new vendor without listing an item for them, or vice versa; a deletion anomaly would occur if deleting all items for a vendor also caused the vendor’s data to disappear; “key anomaly” isn’t a standard term in this context.

When data about a vendor is stored in every inventory record, any change to that vendor’s details must be made in many places. If one row is missed, the same vendor ends up with inconsistent information across the database. That fragility is the hallmark of an update anomaly. Normalizing by moving vendor details into a separate table and linking items to vendors with an ID prevents this duplication, so a single update suffices.

An insertion anomaly would show up if you couldn’t add a new vendor without listing an item for them, or vice versa; a deletion anomaly would occur if deleting all items for a vendor also caused the vendor’s data to disappear; “key anomaly” isn’t a standard term in this context.