Advertisement

Optimizing Computation of Repairs from Active Integrity Constraints

  • Luís Cruz-Filipe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8367)

Abstract

Active integrity constraints (AICs) are a form of integrity constraints for databases that not only identify inconsistencies, but also suggest how these can be overcome. The semantics for AICs defines different types of repairs, but deciding whether an inconsistent database can be repaired is a NP- or \(\Sigma^2_p\)-complete problem, depending on the type of repairs one has in mind. In this paper, we introduce two different relations on AICs: an equivalence relation of independence, allowing the search to be parallelized among the equivalence classes, and a precedence relation, inducing a stratification that allows repairs to be built progressively. Although these relations have no impact on the worst-case scenario, they can make significant difference in the practical computation of repairs for inconsistent databases.

Keywords

Integrity Constraint Precedence Relation Optimize Computation Propositional Atom Deductive Database 
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.
    Abiteboul, S.: Updates, a new frontier. In: Gyssens, M., Paredaens, J., Van Gucht, D. (eds.) ICDT 1988. LNCS, vol. 326, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beeri, C., Vardi, M.Y.: The implication problem for data dependencies. In: Even, S., Kariv, O. (eds.) ICALP 1981. LNCS, vol. 115, pp. 73–85. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caroprese, L., Greco, S., Sirangelo, C., Zumpano, E.: Declarative semantics of production rules for integrity maintenance. In: Etalle, S., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) ICLP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4079, pp. 26–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caroprese, L., Truszczyński, M.: Active integrity constraints and revision programming. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 11(6), 905–952 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Engrácia, P., Gaspar, G., Nunes, I.: Computing repairs from active integrity constraints. In: Wang, H., Banach, R. (eds.) TASE 2013, pp. 183–190. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artif. Intell. 57(2-3), 227–270 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flesca, S., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: Active integrity constraints. In: Moggi, E., Scott Warren, D. (eds.) PPDP, pp. 98–107. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P.: Database updates through abduction. In: McLeod, D., Sacks-Davis, R., Schek, H.-J. (eds.) VLDB 1990, pp. 650–661. Morgan Kaufmann (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Allen, J.F., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) KR 1991, pp. 387–394. Morgan Kaufmann (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marek, V.W., Truszczynski, M.: Revision programming, database updates and integrity constraints. In: Gottlob, G., Vardi, M.Y. (eds.) ICDT 1995. LNCS, vol. 893, pp. 368–382. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayol, E., Teniente, E.: Addressing efficiency issues during the process of integrity maintenance. In: Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Soda, G., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) DEXA 1999. LNCS, vol. 1677, pp. 270–281. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Naqvi, S.A., Krishnamurthy, R.: Database updates in logic programming. In: Edmondson-Yurkanan, C., Yannakakis, M. (eds.) PODS 1988, pp. 251–262. ACM (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Przymusinski, T.C., Turner, H.: Update by means of inference rules. J. Log. Program. 30(2), 125–143 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Teniente, E., Olivé, A.: Updating knowledge bases while maintaining their consistency. VLDB J. 4(2), 193–241 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Widom, J., Ceri, S. (eds.): Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules For Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luís Cruz-Filipe
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Southern DenmarkDenmark
  2. 2.LabMagLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations