skip to main content
10.1145/1807085.1807127acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The power of tree projections: local consistency, greedy algorithms, and larger islands of tractability

Published:06 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Enforcing local consistency is a well-known technique to simplify the evaluation of conjunctive queries. It consists of repeatedly taking the semijion between every pair of (relations associated with) query atoms, until the procedure stabilizes. If some relation becomes empty, then the query has an empty answer. Otherwise, we cannot say anything in general, unless we have some information on the structure of the given query. In fact, a fundamental result in database theory states that the class of queries for which---on every database---local consistency entails global consistency is precisely the class of acyclic queries. In the last few years, several efforts have been made to define structural decomposition methods isolating larger classes of nearly-acyclic queries, yet retaining the same nice properties as acyclic ones. In particular, it is known that queries having bounded (generalized) hypertree-width can be evaluated in polynomial time, and that this structural property is also sufficient to guarantee that local consistency solves the problem, as for acyclic queries. However, the precise power of such an approach was an open problem: Is it the case that bounded generalized hypertree-width is also a necessary condition to guarantee that local consistency entails global consistency?

In this paper, we positively answer this question, and go beyond. Firstly, we precisely characterize the power of local consistency procedures in the more general framework of tree projections, where a query Q and a set V of views (i.e., resources that can be used to answer Q) are given, and where one looks for an acyclic hypergraph covering Q and covered by Q---all known structural decomposition methods are just special cases of this framework, defining their specific set of resources. We show that the existence of tree projections of certain subqueries is a necessary and sufficient condition to guarantee that local consistency entails global consistency. In particular, tight characterizations are given not only for the decision problem, but also when answers restricted to variables covered by some view have to be computed. Secondly, we consider greedy tree-projections that are easy to compute, and we study how far they can be from arbitrary tree-projections, which are intractable in general. Finally, we investigate classes of instances not included in those having tree projections, and which can be easily recognized and define either new islands of tractability, or islands of quasi-tractability.

References

  1. S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I. Adler. Width Functions for Hypertree Decompositions. PhD Thesis, University of Freiburg, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. I. Adler. Tree-Related Widths of Graphs and Hypergraphs. SIAM Journal Discrete Mathematics, 22(1), pp. 102--123, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. I. Adler, G. Gottlob, and M. Grohe. Hypertree-Width and Related Hypergraph Invariants. European Journal of Combinatorics, 28, pp. 2167--2181, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Atserias, A. Bulatov, and V. Dalmau. On the Power of k-Consistency, In Proc. of ICALP'07, pp. 279--290, 2007. 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), pp. 479--513, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. P.A. Bernstein and N. Goodman. The power of natural semijoins. SIAM Journal on Computing, 10(4), pp. 751--771, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. A.K. Chandra, D.C. Kozen, and L.J. Stockmeyer. Alternation. Journal of the ACM, 26:114--133, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. H. Chen and V. Dalmau. Beyond Hypertree Width: Decomposition Methods Without Decompositions. In Proc. of CP'05, pp. 167--181, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. A. Cohen, P. Jeavons, and M. Gyssens. A unified theory of structural tractability for constraint satisfaction problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 74(5), pp. 721--743, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. V. Dalmau, Ph.G. Kolaitis, and M.Y. Vardi. Constraint Satisfaction, Bounded Treewidth, and Finite-Variable Logics. In Proc. of CP'02, pp. 310--326, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Fagin. Degrees of acyclicity for hypergraphs and relational database schemes. Journal of the ACM, 30(3):514--550, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. The complexity of acyclic conjunctive queries. Journal of the ACM, 48(3), pp. 431--498, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 64(3), pp. 579--627, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 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, 66(4), pp. 775--808, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. G. Gottlob, Z. Miklos, and T. Schwentick. Generalized hypertree decompositions: NP-hardness and tractable variants. Journal of the ACM, 56(6), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. G. Gottlob and A. Nash. Efficient Core Computation in Data Exchange. Journal of the ACM, 55(2), Article 9, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. N. Goodman and O. Shmueli. The tree projection theorem and relational query processing. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 29(3), pp. 767--786, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. G. Greco and F. Scarcello. Tree Projections: Hypergraph Games and Minimality. In Proc. of ICALP'08, pp. 736--747, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. Greco and F. Scarcello. The Power of Tree Projections. Technical Report at the Computing Research Repository, arXiv.org, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Grohe. The complexity of homomorphism and constraint satisfaction problems seen from the other side. Journal of the ACM, 54(1), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Grohe and D. Marx. Constraint solving via fractional edge covers. In Proc. of SODA '06, pp. 289--298, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. D. Johnson and A. Klug. Testing containment of Conjunctive Queries Under Functional and Inclusion Dependencies. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 28(1), pp. 167--189, 1984Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. D. Marx. Approximating fractional hypertree width. In Proc. of SODA'09, pp. 902--911, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. N. Robertson and P.D. Seymour. Graph minors III: Planar tree-width. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 36, pp. 49--64, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. R. Rosati. On the Decidability and Finite Controllability of Query Processing in Databases with Incomplete Information. In Proc. of PODS'06, pp. 356--365, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Y. Sagiv and O Shmueli. Solving Queries by Tree Projections. ACM Transaction on Database Systems, 18(3), pp. 487--511, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. O. Reingold. Undirected ST-connectivity in log-space, Journal of the ACM, 55(4), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. W.L. Ruzzo. Tree-size bounded alternation. Journal of Cumputer and System Sciences, 21, pp. 218--235, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. R.E. Tarjan, and M. Yannakakis. Simple linear-time algorithms to test chordality of graphs, test acyclicity of hypergraphs, and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 13(3):566--579, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge Base Systems. Computer Science Press, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Yannakakis. Algorithms for acyclic database schemes. In Proc. of VLDB'81, pp. 82--94, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The power of tree projections: local consistency, greedy algorithms, and larger islands of tractability

            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
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              PODS '10: Proceedings of the twenty-ninth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
              June 2010
              350 pages
              ISBN:9781450300339
              DOI:10.1145/1807085

              Copyright © 2010 ACM

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 6 June 2010

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate476of1,835submissions,26%

            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!