Determinacy and Rewriting of Conjunctive Queries Using Views: A Progress Report

  • Alan Nash
  • Luc Segoufin
  • Victor Vianu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4353)


Suppose we are given a set of exact conjunctive views V and a conjunctive query Q. Suppose we wish to answer Q using V, but the classical test for the existence of a conjunctive rewriting of Q using V answers negatively. What can we conclude: (i) there is no way Q can be answered using V, or (ii) a more powerful rewriting language may be needed. This has been an open question, with conventional wisdom favoring (i). Surprisingly, we show that the right answer is actually (ii). That is, even if V provides enough information to answer Q, it may not be possible to rewrite Q in terms of V using just conjunctive queries – in fact, no monotonic language is sufficiently powerful. We also exhibit several well-behaved classes of conjunctive views and queries for which conjunctive rewritings remain sufficient. This continues a previous investigation of rewriting and its connection to semantic determinacy, for various query and view languages.


Query Language Database Schema Conjunctive Query Answering Query Database Instance 
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., Duschka, O.: Complexity of answering queries using materialized views. In: PODS 1998, pp. 254–263 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison Wesley, Reading (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Afrati, F., Li, C., Mitra, P.: Answering queries using views with arithmetic comparisons. In: PODS 2002, pp. 209–220 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bancilhon, F., Spyratos, N.: Update semantics of relational views. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 6(4), 557–575 (1981)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Vardi, M.Y.: Lossless regular views. In: PODS 2002, pp. 247–258 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang, C.C., Keisler, H.J.: Model Theory. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1977)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chekuri, C., Rajaraman, A.: Conjunctive query containment revisited. In: Afrati, F.N., Kolaitis, P.G. (eds.) ICDT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1186, pp. 56–70. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dar, S., Franklin, M.J., Jonsson, B., Srivastava, D., Tan, M.: Semantic data caching and replacement. In: VLDB 1996, pp. 330–341 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deutsch, A., Popa, L., Tannen, V.: Physical data independence, constraints and optimization with universal plans. In: VLDB 1999, pp. 459–470 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grumbach, S., Rafanelli, M., Tininini, L.: Querying aggregate data. In: PODS 1999, pp. 174–184 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grumbach, S., Tininini, L.: On the content of materialized aggregate views. In: PODS 2000, pp. 47–57 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levy, A.Y., Mendelzon, A.O., Sagiv, Y., Srivastava, D.: Answering queries using views. In: PODS 1995, pp. 95–104 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rajaraman, A., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J.D.: Answering queries using templates with binding patterns. In: PODS 1995, pp. 105–112 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Segoufin, L., Vianu, V.: Views and queries: determinacy and rewriting. In: PODS 2005, pp. 49–60 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ullman, J.D.: Information integration using logical views. In: Afrati, F.N., Kolaitis, P.G. (eds.) ICDT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1186, pp. 19–40. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Nash
    • 1
  • Luc Segoufin
    • 2
  • Victor Vianu
    • 1
  1. 1.UC San Diego 
  2. 2.INRIA and Univ. Paris 11 

Personalised recommendations