skip to main content
10.1145/1265530.1265533acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Generalized hypertree decompositions: np-hardness and tractable variants

Published:11 June 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

The generalized hypertree width GHW(H) of a hypergraph H is a measure of its cyclicity. Classes of conjunctive queries or constraint satisfaction problems whose associated hypergraphs have bounded GHW are known to be solvable in polynomial time. However,it has been an open problem for several years if for a fixed constant k and input hypergraph H it can be determined in polynomial time whether GHW(H)< k. Here, this problem is settled by proving that even for k=3 the problem is already NP-hard. On the way to this result, another long standing open problem, originally raised by Goodman and Shmueli in 1984 all in the context of join optimization is solved. It is proven that determining whether a hypergraph H admits a tree projection with respect to a hypergraph G is NP-complete. Our intractability results on generalized hypertree width motivate further research on more restrictive tractable hypergraph decomposition methods that approximate general hypertree decomposition (GHD). We show that each such method is dnominated by a tractable decomposition method definable through a function that associates a set of partial edges to a hypergraph. By using one particular such function, we define the new Component Hypertree Decomposition method, which is tractable and strictly more general than other approximations to GHD published so far.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

Low Resolution
High Resolution

References

  1. S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I. Adler. Marshals, monotone marshals, and hypertree-width. Journal of Graph Theory, 47(4):275--296, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. I. Adler, G. Gottlob, and M. Grohe. Hypertree-width and related hypergraph invariants. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Applications (EUROCOMB'05), volume AE of DMTCS Proceedings Series, pages 5--10, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Arnborg. Efficient algorithms for combinatorial problems on graphs with bounded decomposability - a survey. BIT, 25:2--23, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Arnborg, J. Lagergren, and D. Seese. Easy problems for tree decomposable graphs. Journal of Algorithms, 12(2):308--340, Jun 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Beeri, R. Fagin, D. Maier, and M. Yannakakis. On the desirability of acyclic database schemes. Journal of the ACM, 30(3):479--513, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. K. Chandra and P. M. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational databases. In ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'77), pages 77--90, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. C. Chekuri and A. Rajaraman. Conjunctive query containment revisited. Theor. Comput. Sci., 239(2):211--229, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. A. Cohen, P. Jeavons, and M. Gyssens. A unified theory of structural tractability for constraint satisfaction and spread cut decomposition. In IJCAI'05, pages 72--77, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. B. Courcelle. Graph Rewriting: An Algebraic and Logic Approach. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B, pages 193--242. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. Flum, M. Frick, and M. Grohe. Query evaluation via tree-decompositions. J. ACM, 49(6):716--752, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. C. Golumbic, H. Kaplan, and R. Shamir. Graph sandwich problems. Journal of Algorithms, 19:449--473, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. C. Golumbic and A. Wassermann. Complexity and algorithms for graph and hypergraph sandwich problems. Graphs and Combinatorics, 14:223--239, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. N. Goodman and O. Shmueli. The tree projection theorem and relational query processing. JCSS, 28(1):60--79, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. G. Gottlob, V. Gurvich, and Z. Miklós. On the complexity of the acyclic hypergraph sandwich problem. Technical Report DBAI-TR-2005-51, Vienna University of Technology, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. A comparison of structural CSP decomposition methods. Artificial Intelligence, 124(2):243--282, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. The complexity of acyclic conjunctive queries. Journal of the ACM, 48(3):431--498, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (JCSS), 64(3):579--627, May 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. Robbers, marshals, and guards: game theoretic and logical characterizations of hypertree width. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (JCSS), 66(4):775--808, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. Gottlob, Z. Miklós, and T. Schwentick. Generalized Hypertree Decompositions: NP-Hardness and Tractable Variants. Technical report DBAI-TR-2007-55, Vienna University of Technology, 2007. http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/staff/miklos/ghw.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. G. Gottlob, R. Pichler, and F. Wei. Bounded Treewidth as a Key to Tractability of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. In Proc. AAAI 2006. AAAI Press, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Grohe and D. Marx. Constraint solving via fractional edge covers. In SODA, pages 289--298, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Lustig and O. Shmueli. Acyclic hypergraph projections. Journal of Algorithms, 30(2):400--422, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. N. Robertson and P. D. Seymour. Graph minors. II. Algorithmic aspects of tree-width. J. Algorithms, 7:309--322, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Y. Sagiv and O. Shmueli. Solving queries by tree projections. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 18(3):487--511, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. F. Scarcello, G. Greco, and N. Leone. Weighted hypertree decompositions and optimal query plans. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 210--221, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Generalized hypertree decompositions: np-hardness and tractable variants

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!