Advertisement

Improved View Selection Algorithm in Data Warehouse

  • Jong-Soo Sohn
  • Jin-Hyuk Yang
  • In-Jeong Chung
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 215)

Abstract

In order to minimize the query processing time, a data warehouse maintains materialized views of aggregate data derived from a fact table. However, due to the expensive computing and space costs materializing the whole relations instead of part of the relations results in much worse performance. Consequently, proper selection of appropriate views to be materialized is very important to get a precise and fast response in the data warehouse. However, this view selection problem is NP-hard problem, and there have been many research works on the selection of materialized views. In this paper we propose an improved algorithm to overcome problems of existing view selection algorithms. In the presented algorithm, we first construct the reduced tables in the data warehouse using clustering method among data mining techniques, and then we consider the combination of reduced tables as the materialized views instead of combination of the original base relations. For the justification of the suggested idea, we show the experimental results in which time as well as space costs are about 1.7 times better than the conventional approaches which considered all the tuples in a relation to materialize.

Keywords

Materialized views Data warehouse Clustering 

References

  1. 1.
    Gupta H, Mumick I (1999) In: Selection of views to materialize under a maintenance cost constraint. Database theory—ICDT’99, pp 453–470Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harinarayan V, Rajaraman A, Ullman JD (1996) Implementing data cubes efficiently. SIGMOD Rec 25(2):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gupta H (1997) In: Selection of views to materialize in a data warehouse. Database theory—ICDT’97, pp 98–112Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang J, Karlapalem K, Li Q (1997) Algorithms for materialized view design in data warehousing environment. 136–145 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang C, Yao X, Yang J (2001) An evolutionary approach to materialized views selection in a data warehouse environment. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C: Appl Rev 31(3):282–294MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee M, Hammer J (2001) Speeding up materialized view selection in data warehouses using a randomized algorithm. Int J Coop Inf Syst 10(3):327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi CH, Yu J, Gou G (2002) What difference heuristics make: Maintenance-cost view-selection revisited. In: Advances in web-age information management, 313–350Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu JX, Yao X, Choi CH et al. (2003) Materialized view selection as constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C-Appl Reviews 33(4):458–467Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ashadevi B, Subramanian R (2009) Optimized cost effective approach for selection of materialized views in data warehousing. Int J Computer Sci Technol 9(1)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen MS, Han J, Yu PS (1996) Data mining: An overview from a database perspective. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 8(6):866–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agrawal R, Imielinski T, Swami A (1993) Database mining: a performance perspective. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 5(6):914–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berson A, Smith SJ (1997) Data warehousing, data mining, and OLAP. Computing McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalnis P, Mamoulis N, Papadias D (2002) View selection using randomized search. Data Knowl Eng 42(1):89–111CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceKorea UniversitySejong CitySouth Korea
  2. 2.Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food Republic of KoreaAn-yangSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations