Minimizing detail data in data warehouses

  • M. O. Akinde
  • O. G. Jensen
  • M. H. Böhlen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1377)


Data warehouses collect and maintain large amounts of data from several distributed and heterogeneous data sources. Because of security reasons, operational requirements, and technical feasibility it is often impossible for data warehouses to access the data sources directly. Instead data warehouses have to replicate legacy information as detail data in order to be able to maintain their summary data.

In this paper we investigate how to minimize the amount of detail data stored in a data warehouse. More specifically, we identify the minimal amount of data that has to be replicated in order to maintain, either incrementally or by recomputation, summary data defined in terms of generalized project-select-join (GPSJ) views. We show how to minimize the number of tuples and attributes in the current detail tables and even aggregate them where possible. The amount of data to be stored in current detail tables is minimized by exploiting smart duplicate compression in addition to local and join reductions. We identify situations where it becomes possible to omit the typically huge fact table and prove that these techniques in concert ensure that the current detail data is minimal in the sense that no subset of it permits to accurately maintain the same summary data. Finally, we sketch how existing maintenance methods can be adapted to use the minimal detail tables we propose.


Fact Table Local Reduction Base Table Heterogeneous Data Source Star Schema 
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.
    M. O. Akinde, O. G. Jensen, and M. H. Böhlen. Minimizing Detail Data in Data Warehouses. R-98-5002, Aalborg University, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. A. Blakely, N. Coburn, and P. A. Larson. Updating Derived Relations: Detecting Irrevelant and Autonomously Computable Updates. In ACM Transactions on Database Systems, pages 14(3):369–400. Los Alamitos, USA, September 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving Production Rules for Incremental View Maintenance. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 577–589. Barcelona, Spain, September 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Gupta, V. Harinarayan, and D. Quass. Aggregate-Query Processing in Data Warehousing Environments. In Umeshwar Dayal, Peter M. D. Gray, and Shojiro Nishio, editors, Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference on Very large Databases. Zurich, Switzerland, September 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Gupta, H. V. Jagadish, and I. S. Mumick. Data Integration using Self Maintainable Views. Technical report, AT&T Bell Laboratories, November 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Griffin and L. Libkin. Incremental Maintenance of Views with Duplicates. In M. Carey and D. Schneider, editors, Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, pages 328–339. San Jose, CA, USA, May 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Gupta, I. S. Mumick, and V. S. Subrahmanian. Maintaining Views Incrementally. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, pages 157–166. Washington D.C., USA, May 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. V. Harrison and S. W. Diettrich. Maintenance of Materialized Views in a Deductive Database: An Update Propagation Approach. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Data Enginerring, pages 56–65, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Hull and G. Zhou. A Framework for Supporting Data Integration using the Materialized and Virtual Approaches. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. H. Inmon, C. Imhoff, and G. Battas. Building the Operational Data Store. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. H. Inmon. Building the Data Warehouse. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Kimball. The Data Warehouse Toolkit. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. S. Mumick, D. Quass, and B. S. Mumick. Maintenance of Data Cubes and Summary Tables in a Warehouse. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data. Tuscon, Arizona, USA, May 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Quass, A. Gupta, I. S. Mumick, and J. Widom. Making Views Self-Maintainable for Data Warehousing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems. Miami Beach, Florida, USA, December 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Quass. Maintenance Expressions for Views with Aggregation. In ACM Workshop on Materialized Views: Techniques and Applications. Montreal, Canada, June 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Segev and W. Fang. Currency-based Updates to Distributed Materialized Views. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Data Enginerring, pages 512–520. Los Alamitos, USA, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Segev and W. Fang. Optimal Update Policies for Distributed Materialized Views. In Management Science, pages 37(7):851–870, July 1991.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Segev and J. Park. Updating Distributed Materialized Views. In IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, pages 1(2):173–184, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Widom. Research Problems in Data Warehousing. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, November 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. O. Akinde
    • 1
  • O. G. Jensen
    • 1
  • M. H. Böhlen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAalborg UniversityAalborg γstDenmark

Personalised recommendations