Advertisement

Decomposition and lossless join in constraint databases

  • Yujun Wang
  • Baile Shi
  • Yunyao Qu
Languages
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1191)

Abstract

As a very promising new data model, constraint database is attracting a growing interest recently. For better applications, we need to study its design theory. But to the best of our knowledge, no papers about the design of constraint databases could be found. So we hope to extend the well-developed design theory in relational databases to constraint databases. We introduce the notions such as variable independence, functional dependency, decomposition, lossless join and canonical form, etc. in the context of constraint databases. We present an algorithm to compute the canonical form of a dense-order constraint relation over a variable set, which preserve a variable independence of every generalized tuple and prove its correctness. Our main result is to prove that the existence of variable independence and functional dependency under some conditions, can decide whether a dense-order constraint relation scheme has a lossless-join decomposition. Our work provides basic theoretic results and an algorithm for the scheme design which is central in the design of dense-order constraint databases.

Keywords

Generalize Relation Canonical Form Relational Database Functional Dependency Data Dependency 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Michael Benedikt, Guozhu Dong, Leonid Libkin, Limsoon Wong. Relational Expressive Power of Constraint Query Languages. PODS (1996) 5–16.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.Chomicki, Dina.Q. Goldin, Gabriel.M.Kuper. Variable Independence and Aggregation Closure. PODS (1996) 40–48.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.Chomicki, G. Kuper. Measuring infinite relations. PODS (1995) 78–85.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dina Q. Goldin, Paris C. Kanellakis. Constraint Query Algebras. To appear in Constraints Journal, 1st issue. (1996).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stephane Grumbach, Jianwen Su. Finitely Representable Databases. PODS (1994) 289–300.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stephane Grumbach, Jianwen Su. Dense-order Constraint Databases. PODS (1995) 66–77.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stephane Grumbach, Jianwen Su, Christophe Tollu. Linear Constraint Query Languages: Expressive power and complexity. In D. Leivant, editor, Logic and Computational Complexity Workshop, Indianapolis, 1994. Springer Verlag. (to appear in LNCS).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paris C. Kanellakis. Tutorial: Constraint Programming and Database Languages. PODS (1995) 46–53.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paris C. Kanellakis, Dina Q. Goldin. Constraints Programming and Database Query Languages. In Proc. 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software(TACS). (1994).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paris C. Kanellakis, Gabriel M. Kuper, Peter Z. Revesz. Constraint Query Languages (Preliminary version). PODS (1990) 299–313.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paris C. Kanellakis, Gabriel M. Kuper, Peter Z. Revesz. Constraint Query Languages. JCSS 51 (1995) 26–52.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paris C. Kanellakis, Sridhar Ramaswamy, Darren Vengroff and Jeffrey Vitter. Indexing for Data Models with Constraints and Classes. PODS (1993).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge-base Systems. Vol 1. Computer Science Systems. (1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yujun Wang
    • 1
  • Baile Shi
    • 1
  • Yunyao Qu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceFudan UniversityShanghaiP.R.China

Personalised recommendations