A Tale of Two Approaches: Query Performance Study of XML Storage Strategies in Relational Databases

  • Sandeep Prakash
  • Sourav S. Bhowmick
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4080)


Several recent papers have investigated a relational approach to store XML data and there is a growing evidence that schema-conscious approaches are a better option than schema-oblivious techniques as far as query performance is concerned. This paper studies three strategies for storing XML document including one representing schema-conscious approach (Shared-Inlining) and two representing schema-oblivious approach (XParent and Sucxent++). We implement and evaluate each approach using benchmark non-recursive XQueries. Our analysis shows an interesting fact that schema-conscious approaches are not always a better option than schema-oblivious approaches! In fact, it is possible for a schema-oblivious approach (Sucxent++) to be faster than a schema-conscious approach (Shared-Inlining) for 55% of the benchmark queries (the highest observed factor being 87.8 times). Sucxent++ also outperforms XParent by up to 1700 times.


Query Processing Query Performance Path Expression XQuery Query Benchmark Query 
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.
    Bohannon, P., Freire, J., Roy, P., Simeon, J.: From XML Schema to Relations: A Cost-based Approach to XML Storage. In: IEEE ICDE (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Böhme, T., Rahm, E.: XMach-1: A Benchmark for XML Data Management. In: German Database Conference (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bressan, S., Lee, M.-L., Li, Y.G., Lacroix, Z., Nambiar, U.: The XOO7 Benchmark. In: EEXTT (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carey, M., DeWitt, D., Naughton, J.: The OO7 Benchmark. In: ACM SIGMOD (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeHaan, D., Toman, D., Consens, M.P., Ozsu, M.T.: A Comprehensive XQuery to SQL Translation Using Dynamic Interval Coding. In: ACM SIGMOD (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ennser, L., Delporte, C., Oba, M., Sunil, K.: Integrating XML and DB2 XML Extender and DB2 Text Extender. In: IBM Redbooks (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Florescu, D., Kossman, D.: Storing and Querying XML Data using an RDBMS. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 22(3) (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jiang, H., Lu, H., Wang, W., Xu Yu, J.: Path Materialization Revisited: An Efficient Storage Model for XML Data. In: 13th Australasian Database Conference (ADC 2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krishnamurthy, R., Kaushik, R., Naughton, J.F.: XML-to-SQL Query Translation Literature: The State of the Art and Open Problems. In: Bellahsène, Z., Chaudhri, A.B., Rahm, E., Rys, M., Unland, R. (eds.) XSym 2003. LNCS, vol. 2824, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krishnamurthy, R., Chakaravarthy, V.T., Kaushik, R., Naughton, J.F.: Recursive XML Schemas, Recursive XML Queries, and Relational Storage: XML-to-SQL Query Translation. In: IEEE ICDE (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu, H., Jiang, H., Xu, J.X., Yu, G., et al.: What Makes the Differences: Benchmarking XML Database Implementations. ACM Trans. on Internet Technology 5(1) (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prakash, S., Bhowmick, S.S., Madria, S.K.: Efficient recursive XML query processing in relational database systems. In: Atzeni, P., Chu, W., Lu, H., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2004. LNCS, vol. 3288, pp. 493–510. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakash, S., Bhowmick, S.S., Madria, S.K.: Efficient Recursive XML Query Processing Using Relational Databases. Data and Knowledge Engineering Journal (to appear), Special Issue on Best Papers of ER 2004, Elsevier Science (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmidt, A., Waas, F., Kersten, M., Carey, M.J., Manolescu, I., Busse, R.: XMark: A Benchmark for XML Data Management. In: VLDB (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shanmugasundaram, J., Tufte, K., et al.: Relational Databases for Querying XML Documents: Limitations and Opportunities. In: VLDB (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tian, F., DeWitt, D., Chen, J., Zhang, C.: The Design and Performance Evaluation of Alternative XML Storage Strategies. ACM Sigmod Record 31(1) (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yao, B., Tamer Özsu, M., Khandelwal, N.: XBench: Benchmark and Performance Testing of XML DBMSs. In: ICDE, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoshikawa, M., Amagasa, T., Shimura, T., Uemura, S.: XRel: A Path-based Approach to Storage and Retrieval of XML Documents Using Relational Databases. ACM TOIT 1(1), 110–141 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang, C., Naughton, J., Dewitt, D., Luo, Q., Lohmann, G.: On Supporting Containment Queries in Relational Database Systems. In: ACM SIGMOD (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Microsoft SQL Server 2000 SDK Documentation, Microsoft 2000, http://www.microsoft.com
  21. 21.
    Oracle XML DB, http://www.oracle.com

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandeep Prakash
    • 1
  • Sourav S. Bhowmick
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore

Personalised recommendations