Advertisement

The many faces of query monotonicity

  • Catriel Beeri
  • Yoram Kornatzky
Session 4: Deductive Database Systems
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 416)

Abstract

Monotonicity, based on the partial order defined by the ‘is a subset of’ relation, is a well understood property of queries. For nested relations, other partial orders leading to different notions of monotonicity are possible. Monotonicity can be used for simple negative comparison of the expressive power of two languages by showing that one is monotone and the other is not. Using this approach we study three questions related to the expressive power of practically useful subsets of well known programming languages for nested relations. First, we show that logic programming languages over nested relations can be regarded as Datalog with user-defined algebraic expressions. This leads to a modular integration of recursion with the monotone subset of the algebra. Second, we prove that the equivalence of the powerset algebra and the complex object Datalog breaks down for their monotone subsets. Third, for the class of positive existential queries over nested relations, which generalize the relational tableau set queries, we show that the use of intermediate types does not enhance their expressive power, in contrast to the known result for general existential queries. We also show that this class does not contain the powerset operator, hence it is a candidate for a tractable tableau query system for nested relations. Finally, the (monotone) Bancilhon-Khoshafian calculus for complex objects is shown to be incomparable to the monotone subsets of most known languages.

Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Expressive Power Complex Object Algebraic Expression 
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]
    S. Abiteboul and C. Beeri. On the Power of Languages for the Manipulation of Complex Objects. Technical Report 846, INRIA, May 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Abiteboul and S. Grumbach, COL: a logic-based language for complex objects. In Proc. of the Workshop on Database Programming Languages, pages 253–276, Roscoff, France, September 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A.V. Aho and J.D. Ullman. Universality of data retrieval languages. In Proc. Sixth ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 110–117, January 1979.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. Ait-Kaci and R. Nasr. LOGIN: a logic programming language with built-in inheritance. Journal of Logic Programming, 3:185–215, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. Apt, H. Blair, and A. Walker. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 89–184, Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Krzysztof R. Apt and M.H. Van Emden. Contributions to the theory of logic programming. Journal of the ACM, 29(3):841–862, July 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    F. Bancilhon and S. Khoshafian. A calculus for complex objects. In Proc. Fifth ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 53–59, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    F. Bancilhon, P. Richard, and M. Scholl. On line processing of compacted relations. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 263–269, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Beeri, S. Naqvi, R. Ramakrishnan, O. Shmueli, and S. Tsur. Sets and negation in a logic database language (LDL1). In Proc. Sixth ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 21–37, March 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Chandra and D. Harel. Structure and complexity of relational queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 25(1):99–128, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A.K. Chandra and D. Harel. Computable queries for relational datbase systems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 21(2):156–178, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    P. Dadam et. al. A DBMS prototype to support extended NF 2 relations: an integrated view on flat tables and hierarchies. In ACM SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 356–367, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Fitting. Enumeration operators and modular logic programming. J. of Logic Programming, 4:11–21, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Gyssens and D. Van Gucht. The powerset algebra as a result of adding programming constructs to the nested relational algebra. In ACM SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 225–232, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Hull and J. Su. On the expressive power of database queries with intermediate types. In Proc. Seventh ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 39–51, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Hull and J. Su. Untyped sets, invention, and computable queries. In Proc. Eighth ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Kifer and J. Wu. A logic for object-oriented logic programming (Maier's O-Logic revisited). In Proc. Eighth ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    G.M. Kuper. Logic programming with sets. In Proc. Sixth ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 11–20, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    G.M. Kuper. On the expressive power of logic programming with sets. In Proc. Seventh ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 10–14, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    G.M. Kuper and M.Y. Vardi. On the complexity of queries in the logical data model. In D. Van Gucht M. Gyssens, J. Paredaens, editor, 2nd International Conference on Database Theory, pages 267–280, Springer-Verlag, Bruges, Belgium, August 1988.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    V. Linnemann. Non first normal form relations and recursive queries: an SQL-based approach. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Data Engineering, pages 591–598, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    H.-B. Paul, H.-J. Schek, M.H. Scholl, G. Weikum, and U. Deppisch. Architecture and implementation of the Darmstadt database kernel system. In ACM SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Y. Sagiv and M. Yannakakis. Equivalence among relational expressions with the union and difference operators. Journal of the ACM, 27(4):633–655, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    H.-J. Schek and M.H. Scholl. An algebra for the relational model with relation-valued attributes. Information Systems, 11(2):137–147, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. Tarski. A lattice theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific J. Math., 5(2):285–309, 1955.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    J.D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems. Computer Science Press, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catriel Beeri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yoram Kornatzky
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.The Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUSA
  3. 3.Leibniz Center for Research in Computer ScienceIsrael

Personalised recommendations