Approximation in databases

  • Leonid Libkin
Contributed Papers Query Languages III
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 893)

Abstract

One source of partial information in databases is the need to combine information from several databases. Even if each database is complete for some “world”, the combined databases will not be, and answers to queries against such combined databases can only be approximated. In this paper we describe various situations in which a precise answer cannot be obtained for a query asked against multiple databases. Based on an analysis of these situations, we propose a classification of constructs that can be used to model approximations.

A major goal is to obtain universality properties for these models of approximations. Universality properties suggest syntax for languages with approximations based on the operations which are naturally associated with them. We prove universality properties for most of the approximation constructs. Then we use them to design languages built around datatypes given by the approximation constructs. A straightforward approach results in langauges that have a number of limitations. In an attempt to overcome those limitations, we explain how all the languages can be embedded into a language for conjunctive and disjunctive sets from [17], and demonstrate its usefulness in querying independent databases.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Biskup. A formal approach to null values in database relations. In: “Advances in Data Base Theory”, Volume 1, Prenum Press, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Breazu-Tannen, P. Buneman, and L. Wong. Naturally embedded query languages. In LNCS 646: Proc. ICDT-92, pages 140–154, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Buneman, S. Davidson, A. Watters. A semantics for complex objects and approximate answers. JCSS 43(1991), 170–218.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Buneman, A. Jung, A. Ohori. Using powerdomains to generalize relational databases. Theoretical Computer Science 91(1991), 23–55.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Cardelli. Types for data-oriented languages. In LNCS 303: Proc. EDBT-88.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Chaudhuri. Finding nonrecursive envelopes for database predicates. In PODS-93, pages 135–146.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Chaudhuri, Ph. Kolaitis. Can Datalog be approximated? In PODS-94, pages 86–96.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Colby. A recursive algebra for nested relations. Inf. Syst. 15 (1990), 567–582.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Grahne. “The Problem of Incomplete Information in Relational Databases”. Springer, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Gunter. The mixed powerdomain. Theoretical Computer Science 103 (1992), 311–334.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Gunter. “Semantics of Programming Languages”. The MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Gunter and L. Libkin. OR-SML: A functional database programming language for disjunctive information and its applications. LNCS 856: Proc. DEXA-94, pages 641–650.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Imielinski and W. Lipski. Incomplete information in relational databases. J. ACM 31(1984), 761–791.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Imielinski, S. Naqvi, and K. Vadaparty. Incomplete objects — a data model for design and planning applications. In Proc. SIGMOD-91, pages 288–297.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Libkin. A relational algebra for complex objects based on partial information. In LNCS 495: Proc. MFDBS-91, pages 36–41, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Libkin. “Aspects of Partial Information in Databases”. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Libkin and L. Wong. Semantic representations and query languages for or-sets. In PODS-93, pages 37–48.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Lipski. On semantic issues connected with incomplete information in databases. ACM Trans. Database Systems 4 (1979), 262–296.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Lipski. On databases with incomplete information. J. ACM 28 (1981), 41–70.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T.-H. Ngair. “Convex Spaces as an Order-theoretic Basis for Problem Solving”. Technical Report MS-CIS-92-60, University of Pennsylvania, 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Puhlmann. The snack powerdomain for database semantics. In LNCS 711: Proc. MFCS-93, Springer Verlag, 1993, pages 650–659.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Romanowska and J.D.H. Smith. “Modal Theory: An Algebraic Approach to Order, Geometry and Convexity”. Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. Tannen. Tutorial: Languages for collection types. In PODS-94, pages 150–154.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Zaniolo. Database relations with null values. JCSS 28 (1984), 142–166.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonid Libkin
    • 1
  1. 1.AT&T Bell LaboratoriesMurray HillUSA

Personalised recommendations