Incremental Maintenance of Schema-Restructuring Views

  • Andreas Koeller
  • Elke A. Rundensteiner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2287)


An important issue in data integration is the integration of semantically equivalent but schematically heterogeneous data sources. Declarative mechanisms supporting powerful source restructuring for such databases have been proposed in the literature, such as the SQL extension SchemaSQL. However, the issue of incremental maintenance of views defined in such languages remains an open problem.

We present an incremental view maintenance algorithm for schema-restructuring views. Our algorithm transforms a source update into an incremental view update, by propagating updates through the operators of a SchemaSQL algebra tree. We observe that schema-restructuring view maintenance requires transformation of data into schema changes and vice versa. Our maintenance algorithm handles any combination of data updates or schema changes and produces a correct sequence of data updates, schema changes, or both as output. In experiments performed on our prototype implementation, we find that incremental view maintenance in SchemaSQL is significantly faster than recomputation in many cases.


Schema Change Input Relation View Versus Heterogeneous Data Source Data Update 
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.
    D. Agrawal, A. El Abbadi, A. Singh, and T. Yurek. Efficient View Maintenance at Data Warehouses. In Proceedings of SIGMOD, pages 417–427, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Chen, M. Kifer, and D. Warren. Hilog as a platform for database languages. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 12(3):37, September 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Garcia Molina, J. Hammer, K. Ireland, et al. Integrating and accessing heterogeneous information sources in TSIMMIS. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Information Gathering, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Gingras, L. Lakshmanan, I. N. Subramanian, et al. Languages for multi-database interoperability. In Joan M. Peckman, editor, Proceedings of SIGMOD, pages 536–538, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Griffin and L. Libkin. Incremental Maintenance of Views with Duplicates. In Proceedings of SIGMOD, pages 328–339, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Gyssens, L. V. S. Lakshmanan, and I. N. Subramanian. Tables as a paradigm for querying and restructuring (extended abstract). In ACM, editor, Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, volume 15, pages 93–103, New York, NY 10036, USA, 1996. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. N. Hanson. A performance analysis of view materialization strategies. In Proceedings of SIGMOD, pages 440–453, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Koeller and E. A. Rundensteiner. Incremental Maintenance of Schema-Restructuring Views in SchemaSQL. Technical Report WPI-CS-TR-00-25, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Dept. of Computer Science, January 2001.
  9. 9.
    R. Krishnamurthy, W. Litwin, and W. Kent. Language features for interoperability of databases with schematic discrepancies. SIGMOD Record (ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data), 20(2):40–49, June 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. A. Kuno and E. A. Rundensteiner. Incremental maintenance of materialized object-oriented views in MultiView: Strategies and performance evaluation. IEEE Transaction on Data and Knowledge Engineering, 10(5):768–792, Sept/Oct. 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. V. S. Lakshmanan, F. Sadri, and I. N. Subramanian. SchemaSQL-A Language for Interoperability in Relational Multi-database Systems. In T. M. Vijayaraman et al., editors, International Conference on VeryL arge Data Bases, pages 239–250, Mumbai, India, Sept. 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. V. S. Lakshmanan, F. Sadri, and S. N. Subramanian. On Efficiently Implementing SchemaSQL on an SQL Database System. In International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 471–482, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. J. Miller, Y. Ioannidis, and R. Ramakrishnan. The use of information capacity in schema integration and translation. In International Conference on VeryL arge Data Bases, pages 120–133, Dublin, Ireland, August 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Nica, A. J. Lee, and E. A. Rundensteiner. The CVS Algorithm for View Synchronization in Evolvable Large-Scale Information Systems. In EDBT’98, pages 359–373, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Pitoura, O. Bukhres, and A. Elmagarmid. Object orientation in multidatabase systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 27(2):141–195, June 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    X. Qian and G. Wiederhold. Incremental recomputation of active relational expressions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (TKDE), 3(3):337–341, September 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Tork Roth, M. Arya, L. M. Haas, et al. The Garlic project. SIGMOD Record (ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data), 25(2):557 ff., 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Koeller
    • 1
  • Elke A. Rundensteiner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceWorcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcester

Personalised recommendations