Complexity of Typechecking XML Views of Relational Databases

  • Piotr Wieczorek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4353)


The typechecking problem for transformations of relational data into tree data is the following: given a TreeQL program P (called transformation), and a DTD d (called output type), decide whether for every database instance D the result of the transformation P of D is of a type consistent with d (see [2]). TreeQL programs with projection-free conjunctive queries and DTDs with arbitrary regular expressions are considered here.

A non-elementary upper bound for the typechecking problem is given in [2] (although in a more general setting, where equality and negation in projection-free conjunctive queries and additional universal integrity constraints are allowed).

In this paper we show that the typechecking problem is in coNEXPTIME.

As an intermediate step we consider the following problem, which can be formulated in a language independent of XML notions. Given a set of triples of the form (ϕ, k, j), where ϕ is a projection-free conjunctive query and k, j are natural numbers, decide whether there exists a database D such that for each triple (ϕ, k, j) in the set, there exists a natural number α, such that there are exactly k + j * α tuples satisfying the query ϕ in D. Our main technical contribution consists of a NEXPTIME algorithm for the last problem.


Relational Database Integrity Constraint Regular Language Output Type Conjunctive Query 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alon, N., Milo, T., Neven, F., Suciu, D., Vianu, V.: Typechecking XML Views of Relational Databases. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 4(3), 315–354 (2003); (preliminary version) Proceedings of the 16th LICS, pp. 421–430 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alon, N., Milo, T., Neven, F., Suciu, D., Vianu, V.: XML with data values: Typechecking revisited. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 66(4), 688–727 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernandez, M., Suciu, D., Tan, W.: SilkRoute: Trading between relations and XML. In: Proceedings of the WWW9 Conference, pp. 723–746 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martens, W., Neven, F.: On the complexity of typechecking top-down XML transformations. Theoretical Computer Science 336(1), 153–180 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martens, W., Neven, F.: Frontiers of tractability for typechecking simple XML transformations. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Milo, T., Suciu, D., Vianu, V.: Typechecking for XML transformers. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 66(1), 66–97 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piotr Wieczorek
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of WrocławWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations