Expressiveness and complexity of active databases

  • Philippe Picouet
  • Victor Vianu
Contributed Papers Session 3: Active Databases
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1186)

Abstract

The expressiveness and complexity of several active database prototypes are formally studied. First, a generic framework for the specification of active databases is developed. This factors out the common aspects of the prototypes considered, and allows studying various active database features independently of any specific prototype. Furthermore, each of the prototypes can be specified by specializing certain parameters of the framework. The prototypes considered are ARDL, HiPAC, Postgres, Starburst, and Sybase. Using their formal specifications, the prototypes are compared to each other with respect to expressive power. The results provide insight into the programming paradigm of active databases, the interplay of various features, and their impact on expressiveness and complexity.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AV91a]
    S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu. Generic computation and its complexity. In Proc. ACM SIGACT Symp. on the Theory of Computing, pages 209–219, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [AV91b]
    S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu. Datalog extensions for database queries and updates. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43(1), pages 62–124, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [AV95]
    S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu. Computing with first-order logic. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 50(2), pages 309–335, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [AHW95]
    A. Aiken, J. Widom and J.M. Hellerstein. State analysis techniques for predicting the behavior of active database rules. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 20(1), pages 3–41, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [BM91]
    C. Beeri and T. Milo. A model for active object oriented databases. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 337–349, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [CCCR+90]
    F. Cacace, S. Ceri, S. Crespi-Reghizzi, L. Tanca, and R. Zicari. Integrating object-oriented data modeling with a rule-based programming paradigm. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int'l. Conf. on the Management of Data, pages 225–236, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [Cha81]
    A. K. Chandra. Programming primitives for database languages. In Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 50–62, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. [CBB+89]
    S. Chakravarthy, et. al. Hipac: a research project in active time-constrained databases management. Technical report, Xerox Advanced Information Technology, July 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [C71]
    S.A. Cook. Characterizations of pushdown machines in terms of time-bounded computers. J. of the ACM, 18(1), pages 4–18, 1971.Google Scholar
  10. [D+88]
    U. Dayal et al. The HiPac project: Combining active databases and timing constraints. In ACM SIGMOD Record, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. [FT95]
    P. Fraternali and L. Tanca. A structured approach for the definition of the semantics of active databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 20(4), pages 414–471, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [HLM88]
    M. Hsu, R. Ladin and D.R. McCarthy. An execution model for active data base management systems. In Proc. Int'l. Conf. on Data and Knowledge Bases, pages 171–179, Jerusalem, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [HJ91a]
    R. Hull and D. Jacobs. Language constructs for programming active databases. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 455–468, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [HJ91b]
    R. Hull and D. Jacobs. On the semantics of rules in database programming languages. In J. Schmidt and A. Stogny, editors, Next Generation Information System Technology: Proc. of the First International East/West Database Workshop, Kiev, USSR, October 1990, pages 59–85. Springer-Verlag LNCS, Volume 504, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [MD89]
    D. McCarthy and U. Dayal. The architecture of an active database management system. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int'l. Conf. on the Management of Data, pages 215–224, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [Pic95]
    P. Picouet. Puissance d'expression et Consistance sémantique de bases de données actives (Expressive Power and Semantic Consistency of Active Databases.) PhD thesis, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Télécommunications, Paris, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [PV95]
    P. Picouet and V. Vianu. Semantics and expressiveness issues in active databases. In Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [PV]
    P. Picouet and V. Vianu. Semantics and expressiveness issues in active databases. Invited to special issue of JCSS, to appear.Google Scholar
  19. [SKdM92]
    E. Simon, J. Kiernan, and C. de Maindreville. Implementing high level active rules on top of a relational dbms. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 315–326, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [Sto86]
    M. Stonebraker et.al. A rule manager for relational database systems. Technical Report, The Postgres Papers, Electronics Research Lab, UCB/ERL M86/85, U. of California, Berkeley, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. [Syb87]
    Sybase, Inc. Transact-sql user's guide. Technical report.Google Scholar
  22. [WF90]
    J. Widom and S. J. Finkelstein. Set-oriented production rules in relational database systems. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int'l. Conf. on the Management of Data, pages 259–264, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. [Wid91]
    J. Widom. Deduction in the Starburst production rule system. Technical report, IBM Almaden Research, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. [WC95]
    J. Widom and S. Ceri. Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing. Morgan-Kaufmann, Inc., San Francisco, California, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Picouet
    • 1
  • Victor Vianu
    • 2
  1. 1.E.N.S.T.ParisFrance
  2. 2.U.C. San DiegoLa Jolla

Personalised recommendations