FUN: An Efficient Algorithm for Mining Functional and Embedded Dependencies

  • Noël Novelli
  • Rosine Cicchetti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1973)

Abstract

Discovering functional dependencies from existing databases is an important technique strongly required in database design and administration tools. Investigated for long years, such an issue has been recently addressed with a data mining viewpoint, in a novel and more efficient way by following from principles of level-wise algorithms. In this paper, we propose a new characterization of minimal functional dependencies which provides a formal framework simpler than previous proposals. The algorithm, defined for enforcing our approach has been implemented and experimented. It is more efficient (in whatever configuration of original data) than the best operational solution (according to our knowledge): the algorithm Tane. Moreover, our approach also performs (without additional execution time) the mining of embedded functional dependencies, i.e. dependencies holding for a subset of the attribute set initially considered (e.g. for materialized views widely used in particular for managing data warehouses).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Agrawal, H. Mannila, R. Srikant, H. Toivonen, and A.I. Verkamo. Fast Discovery of Association Rules. Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 307–328, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Agrawal and R. Srikant. Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules. In Proc. VLDB’94, pages 487–499, Santiago, Chile, September 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.W. Armstrong. Dependency Structures of Database Relationships. In Proc. IFIP Conf., pages 580–583, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1974. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.W. Armstrong and C. Delobel. Decompositions and Functional Dependencies in Relations. ACM TODS, 5(4):404–430, Dec 1980.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Beeri and P.A. Bernstein. Computational Problems Related to the Design of Normal Form Relational Schemas. ACM TODS, 4(1):30–59, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Beeri, M. Dowd, R. Fagin, and R. Statman. On the Structure of Armstrong Relations for Functional Dependencies. Journal of the ACM, 31(1):30–46, 1984.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Birkhoff. Lattices Theory. Coll. Pub. XXV, vol. 25, 3rd edition, 1967.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Bitton, J. Millman, and S. Torgersen. A Feasability and Performance Study of Dependency Inference. In Proc. ICDE’89, pages 635–641, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Chaudhuri. Data Mining and Database Systems: Where is the Intersection? Data Engineering Bulletin, 21(1):4–8, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.H.L. Chiang, T.M. Barron, and V.C. Storey. Reverse Engineering of Relational Databases: Extraction of an EER Model from a Relational Database. DKE, 10(12):107–142, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E.F. Codd. Further Normalization of the Data Base Model. Technical Report 909, IBM, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.S. Cosmadakis, P.C. Kanellakis, and N. Spyratos. Partition Semantics for Relations. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 33(2):203–233, 1986.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P.C. Fisher, J.H. Hou, and D.M. Tsou. Succinctness in Dependency Systems. TCS, 24:323–329, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    G. Gottlob. Computing Covers for Embedded Functional Dependencies. In Proc. ACM-SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART’87, pages 58–69, San Diego, US, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    G. Gottlob and L. Libkin. Investigations on Armstrong Relations, Dependency Inference, and Excluded Functional Dependencies. Acta Cybernetica, 9(4):385–402, 1990.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 17.
    J. Gryz. Query Folding with Inclusion Dependencies. In Proc. ICDE’98, pages 126–133, Orlando, US, Feb 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Y. Huhtala, J. Karkkainen, P. Porkka, and H. Toivonen. Efficient Discovery of Functional and Appproximate Dependencies. In Proc. ICDE’98, pages 392–401, Orlando, US, Feb 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Y. Huhtala, J. Karkkainen, P. Porkka, and H. Toivonen. TANE: An Efficient Algorithm for Discovering Functional and Approximate Dependencies. The Computer Journal, 42(2):100–111, 1999.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 20.
    M. Kantola, H. Mannila, K.R. Räihä, and H. Siirtola. Discovering Functional and Inclusion Dependencies in Relational Databases. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 7:591–607, 1992.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 21.
    J. Kivinen and H. Mannila. Approximate Dependency Inference from Relations. TCS, 149(1):129–149, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 22.
    M. Levene. A Lattice View of Functional Dependencies in Incomplete Relations. Acta Cyberbernetica, 12:181–207, 1995.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 23.
    M. Levene and G. Loizou. Axiomatisation of Functional Dependencies in Incomplete Relations. TCS, 206(1–2):283–300, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 24.
    M. Levene and G. Loizou. Database Design for Incomplete Relations. ACM TODS, 24(1):80–125, 1999.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 25.
    M. Levene and G. Loizou. A Guided Tour of Relational Databases and Beyond. Springer-Verlag, London, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    S. Lopes, J.M. Petit, and L. Lakhal. Efficient Discovery of Functional Dependencies and Armstrong Relations. In Proc. EDBT’00, pages 350–364, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    H. Mannila and K.J. Räihä. Design by Example: An Application of Armstrong Relations. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 33(2):126–141, Oct 1986.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 28.
    H. Mannila and K.J. Räihä. On the Complexity of Inferring Functional Dependencies. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 40:237–243, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 29.
    H. Mannila and K.J. Räihä. Algorithms for Inferring Functional Dependencies from Relations. DKE, 12(1):83–99, 1994.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 30.
    H. Mannila and K.J. Räihä. The Design of Relational Databases. Addison Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    H. Mannila and H. Toivonen. Levelwise Search and Borders of Theories in Knowledge Discovery. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1(3):241–258, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 32.
    V.M. Markowitz and J.A. Makowsky. Identifying Extended Entity-Relationship Object Structure in Relational Schemas. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(8):777–790, August 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 33.
    N. Pasquier, Y. Bastide, R. Taouil, and L. Lakhal. Discovering Frequent Closed Itemsets for Association Rules. In Proc. ICDT’99, LNCS, Vol. 1540, Springer Verlag, pages 398–416, Jan 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    J.M. Petit, F. Toumani, J.F. Boulicaut, and J. Kouloumdjian. Towards the Reverse Engineering of Denormalized Relational Databases. In Proc. ICDE’96, pages 218–227, Feb 1996.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    X. Qian. Query Folding. In Proc. ICDE’96, pages 48–55, Feb 1996.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    I. Savnik and P.A. Flach. Bottom-up Induction of Functional Dependencies from Relations. In Proc. AAAI’93, pages 174–185, 1993.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    A.M. Silva and M.A. Melkanoff. A Method for Helping Discover the Dependencies of a Relation, pages 115–133. Plenum. Advances in Data Base Theory, 1981.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    N. Spyratos. The Partition Model: a Deductive Database Model. ACM TODS, 12(1):1–37, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 39.
    Z. Tari, J. Stokes, and S. Spaccapietra. Object Normal Forms and Dependency Constraints for Object-Oriented Schemata. ACM TODS, 22(4):513–569, Dec 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noël Novelli
    • 1
  • Rosine Cicchetti
    • 1
  1. 1.LIM, CNRS FRE-2246Université de la MéditerranéeMarseille Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations