skip to main content
10.1145/2213556.2213590acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Classification of annotation semirings over query containment

Published:21 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

We study the problem of query containment of (unions of) conjunctive queries over annotated databases. Annotations are typically attached to tuples and represent metadata such as probability, multiplicity, comments, or provenance. It is usually assumed that annotations are drawn from a commutative semiring. Such databases pose new challenges in query optimization, since many related fundamental tasks, such as query containment, have to be reconsidered in the presence of propagation of annotations.

We axiomatize several classes of semirings for each of which containment of conjunctive queries is equivalent to existence of a particular type of homomorphism. For each of these types we also specify all semirings for which existence of a corresponding homomorphism is a sufficient (or necessary) condition for the containment. We exploit these techniques to develop new decision procedures for containment of unions of conjunctive queries and axiomatize corresponding classes of semirings. This generalizes previous approaches and allows us to improve known complexity bounds.

References

  1. F.N. Afrati, M. Damigos, M. Gergatsoulis. Query contain- ment under bag and bag-set semantics. IPL 110(10), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. P. Buneman, J. Cheney, W.C. Tan, S. Vansummeren. Curated databases. PODS 2008, 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. Buneman, S. Khanna, W.C. Tan. Why and Where: a characterization of data provenance. ICDT 2001, 316--330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. P. Buneman, E.V. Kostylev. Annotation Algebras for RDFS. SWPM 2010. CEUR Workshop Proc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A.K. Chandra, P.M. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. STOC 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Chaudhuri, M.Y. Vardi. Optimization of real conjunctive queries. PODS 1993, 59--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Chirkova. Equivalence and minimization of conjunctive queries under combined semantics. ICDT 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Cohen, W. Nutt, Y. Sagiv. Deciding equivalences among conjunctive aggregate queries. JACM series 54(2), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Y. Cui, J. Widom, J.L. Wiener. Tracing the lineage of view data in a warehousing environment. ACM,ToDS 25(2), 179--227, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Das Sarma, M. Theobald, J. Widom. Exploiting lineage for confidence computation in uncertain and probabilistic databases. ICDE 2008, 1023--1032. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. Fagin, P.G. Kolaitis, L. Popa, W.C. Tan. Quasi-inverses of schema mappings. ACM,ToDS 33(2), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. N. Fuhr, T. Rölleke. A probabilistic relational algebra for the integration of information retrieval and database systems. ACM,ToIS 15(1), 32--66, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. Grahne, N. Spyratos, D. Stamate. Semantics and containment of queries with internal and external conjunctions. ICDT 1997, LNCS 1186, 71--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T.J. Green. Containment of conjunctive queries on annotated relations. Th. Comp. Syst. 49(2), 429--459, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T.J. Green, G. Karvounarakis, V. Tannen. Provenance semirings. PODS 2007, 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. T. Imieli'nski, W. Lipski, Jr. Incomplete information in relational databases. JACM '31(4), 761--791, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Y.E. Ioannidis, R. Ramakrishnan. Containment of conjunctive queries: beyond relations as sets. ACM,ToDS 20(3), 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T.S. Jayram, P.G. Kolaitis, E. Vee. The containment problem for phreal conjunctive queries with inequalities. PODS 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. D. Olteanu, J. Závodný. Factorised representations of query results: size bounds and readability. ICDT 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Y. Sagiv, M. Yannakakis. Equivalences among relational expressions with the union and difference operators. JACM 27(4), 633--655, 1980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. E. Zimányi. Query evaluation in probabilistic relational databases. TCS 171(1--2), 179--219, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. A. Zimmermann, N. Lopes, A. Polleres, U. Straccia. A general framework for representing, reasoning and querying with annotated Semantic Web data. Web Semantics. In press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Classification of annotation semirings over query containment

        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 '12: Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI symposium on Principles of Database Systems
          May 2012
          332 pages
          ISBN:9781450312486
          DOI:10.1145/2213556

          Copyright © 2012 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 21 May 2012

          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!