Theory of Computing Systems

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 233–260 | Cite as

Optimal Broadcasting Strategies for Conjunctive Queries over Distributed Data

  • Bas KetsmanEmail author
  • Frank Neven


In a distributed context where data is dispersed over many computing nodes, monotone queries can be evaluated in an eventually consistent and coordination-free manner through a simple but naive broadcasting strategy which makes all data available on every computing node. In this paper, we investigate more economical broadcasting strategies for full conjunctive queries without self-joins that only transmit a part of the local data necessary to evaluate the query at hand. We consider oblivious broadcasting strategies which determine which local facts to broadcast independent of the data at other computing nodes. We introduce the notion of broadcast dependency set (BDS) as a sound and complete formalism to represent locally optimal oblivious broadcasting functions. We provide algorithms to construct a BDS for a given conjunctive query and study the complexity of various decision problems related to these algorithms.


Coordination-free evaluation Conjunctive queries Broadcasting 



We thank Phokion Kolaitis for raising the question whether it is always necessary to broadcast all the data in the context of the work in [5]. We thank the reviewers for their in-depth comments and numerous suggestions for improving the presentation of the results.


  1. 1.
    Afrati, F.N., Koutris, P., Suciu, D., Ullman, J.D.: Parallel skyline queries. In: International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), pp 274–284 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afrati, F.N., Ullman, J.D.: Optimizing joins in a map-reduce environment. In: International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT), pp 99–110 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alvaro, P., Conway, N., Hellerstein, J., Marczak, W.R.: Consistency analysis in bloom: a CALM and collected approach. In: Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR), pp 249–260 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alvaro, P., Conway, N., Hellerstein, J.M., Maier, D.: Blazes: Coordination analysis for distributed programs. In: International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp 52–63. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ameloot, T.J., Ketsman, B., Neven, F., Zinn, D.: Weaker forms of monotonicity for declarative networking: a more fine-grained answer to the CALM-conjecture . In: Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp 64–75. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ameloot, T.J., Neven, F., Bussche, J.V.d.: Relational transducers for declarative networking. J. ACM 60(2), 15 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beame, P., Koutris, P., Suciu, D.: Communication steps for parallel query processing. In: Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp 273–284 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beame, P., Koutris, P., Suciu, D.: Skew in parallel query processing. In: Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp 212–223 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buneman, P., Cheney, J., Tan, W.C., Vansummeren, S: Curated databases. In: Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp 1–12. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buneman, P., Khanna, S., Tan, W.C.: Why and where: A characterization of data provenance. In: International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT) volume 1973 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 316–330. Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conway, N., Marczak, W.R., Alvaro, P., Hellerstein, J.M., Maier, D.: Logic and lattices for distributed programming. In: Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC), p 1. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fan, W., Geerts, F., Libkin, L.: On scale independence for querying big data. In: Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp 51–62. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganguly, S., Silberschatz, A., Tsur, S.: Parallel bottom-up processing of datalog queries. J. Log. Program. 14(1&2), 101–126 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hellerstein, J.M.: The declarative imperative: experiences and conjectures in distributed logic. SIGMOD Rec. 39(1), 5–19 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ketsman, B., Neven, F.: Optimal broadcasting strategies for conjunctive queries over distributed data. In: International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), pp 291–307 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koutris, P., Suciu, D.: Parallel evaluation of conjunctive queries. In: Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp 223–234 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meliou, A., Gatterbauer, W., Halpern, J.Y., Koch, C., Moore, K.F., Suciu, D.: Causality in databases. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 33(3), 59–67 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meliou, A., Gatterbauer, W., Moore, K.F., Suciu, D.: The complexity of causality and responsibility for query answers and non-answers. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowmen (PVLDB) 4(1), 34–45 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaharia, M., Chowdhury, M., Das, T., Dave, A., Ma, J., McCauly, M., Franklin, M.J., Shenker, S., Stoica, I.: Resilient distributed datasets: A fault-tolerant abstraction for in-memory cluster computing. In: USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), pp 15–28. USENIX Association (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zinn, D., Green, T.J., Ludäscher, B.: Win-move is coordination-free (sometimes). In: International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), pp 99–113 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasselt University and transnational University of LimburgHasseltBelgium

Personalised recommendations