Object View Hierarchies in DB2 UDB

  • Michael Carey
  • Serge Rielau
  • Bennet Vance
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1777)


In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of object views in IBM’s DB2 Universal Database system. We first describe the object-oriented aspects of DB2’s type system, their implications for views, and our design requirements. We then describe DB2’s object view facility, showing its use to create object views of object data and of legacy relational data. We discuss key aspects of its implementation, explaining how the correctness of object view definitions is checked and how we ensure that queries against object views are translated into efficient queries against the underlying stored database. We close by discussing the current status of object views in DB2.


Internal View Object View Path Expression View Type Case Expression 
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.
    S. Abiteboul and T. Bonner. Objects and views. In Proceedings SIGMOD Conference, Denver, Colorado, pages 238–247, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Agrawal and L. DeMichiel. Type derivation using the projection operation. In Proceedings EDBT Conference, Cambridge, UK, pages 7–14, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Carey and D. DeWitt. Of objects and databases: A decade of turmoil. In Proceedings VLDB Conference, Mumbai (Bombay), India, pages 3–14, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Carey et al. O-O, what have they done to DB2? In Proceedings VLDB Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Carey, L. Haas, P. Schwarz, et al. Towards heterogeneous multimedia information systems: The Garlic approach. In Proceedings IEEE RIDE-DOM Workshop, Taipei, Taiwan, pages 124–131, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Carey and J. Kiernan. Extending SQL-92 for OODB access: Design and implementation experience. In Proceedings ACM OOPSLA Conference, Austin, Texas, pages 467–480, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Codd. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun. ACM, 13(6):377–387, 1970.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Eisenberg and J. Melton. SQL:1999, formerly known as SQL3. ACM SIGMOD Record, 28(1):131–138, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Fuh et al. Implementation of SQL3 structured types with inheritance and value substitutability. In Proceedings VLDB Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Heiler and S. Zdonik. Object views: Extending the vision. In Proceedings ICDE, Los Angeles, California, pages 86–93, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Kifer, W. Kim, and S. Sagiv. Querying object-oriented databases. In Proceedings SIGMOD Conference, San Diego, California, pages 393–402, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Kim. Object-oriented database systems: Promises, reality, and future. In Proceedings VLDB Conference, Dublin, Ireland, pages 676–687, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Ramakrishnan. Database Management Systems. McGraw-Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Scholl, C. Laasch, and M. Tresch. Updatable views in object-oriented databases. In Proceedings DOOD-91 Conference, Munich, Germany, pages 189–207, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Stonebraker and P. Brown. Object-Relational DBMSs (2nd Edition). Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Stonebraker et al. Third-generation database system manifesto. ACM SIGMOD Record, 19(3):31–44, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Carey
    • 1
  • Serge Rielau
    • 2
  • Bennet Vance
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Almaden Research CenterAlmaden
  2. 2.IBM Toronto LaboratoryToronto

Personalised recommendations