Annotation propagation revisited for key preserving views

ABSTRACT

This paper revisits the analysis of annotation propagation from source databases to views defined in terms of conjunctive (SPJ) queries. Given a source database D, an SPJ query Q, the view Q(D) and a tuple ΔV in the view, the view (resp. source) side-effect problem is to find a minimal set ΔD of tuples such that the deletion of ΔD from D results in the deletion of ΔV from Q(D) while minimizing the side effects on the view (resp. the source). A third problem, referred to as the annotation placement problem, is to find a single base tuple ΔD such that annotation in a field of ΔD propagates to ΔV while minimizing the propagation to other fields in the view Q(D). These are important for data provenance and the management of view updates. However important, these problems are unfortunately NP-hard for most subclasses of SPJ views [5].To make the annotation propagation analysis feasible in practice, we propose a key preserving condition on SPJ views, which requires that the projection fields of an SPJ view Q retain a key of each base relation involved in Q. While this condition is less restrictive than other proposals [11, 14], it often simplifies the annotation propagation analysis. Indeed, for key-preserving SPJ views the annotation placement problem coincides with the view side-effect problem, and the view and source side-effect problems become tractable. In addition we generalize the setting of [5] by allowing ΔV to be a group of tuples to be deleted, and investigate the insertion of tuples to the view. We show that group updates make the analysis harder: these problems become NP-hard for several subclasses of SPJ views. We also show that for SPJ views the source and view side-effect problems are NP-hard for single-tuple insertion, but are tractable for some subclasses of SPJ for group insertions, in the presence or in the absence of the key preservation condition.

REFERENCES

• 1: Serge Abiteboul , Richard Hull , Victor Vianu, Foundations of Databases: The Logical Level, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1995
• 2: F. Bancilhon , N. Spyratos, Update semantics of relational views, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), v.6 n.4, p.557-575, Dec. 1981 [doi>10.1145/319628.319634]
• 3: Aaron Bohannon , Benjamin C. Pierce , Jeffrey A. Vaughan, Relational lenses: a language for updatable views, Proceedings of the twenty-fifth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems, June 26-28, 2006, Chicago, IL, USA [doi>10.1145/1142351.1142399]
• 4: Peter Buneman , Adriane Chapman , James Cheney, Provenance management in curated databases, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, June 27-29, 2006, Chicago, IL, USA [doi>10.1145/1142473.1142534]
• 5: Peter Buneman , Sanjeev Khanna , Wang-Chiew Tan, On propagation of deletions and annotations through views, Proceedings of the twenty-first ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems, June 03-05, 2002, Madison, Wisconsin [doi>10.1145/543613.543633]
• 6: Peter Buneman , Sanjeev Khanna , Wang Chiew Tan, Why and Where: A Characterization of Data Provenance, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Database Theory, p.316-330, January 04-06, 2001
• 7: B. Choi, G. Cong, W. Fan, and S. Viglas. Updating recursive XML views of relations. Submitted for publication, 2006.
• 8: Stavros S. Cosmadakis , Christos H. Papadimitriou, Updaies of relational views, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systems, March 21-23, 1983, Atlanta, Georgia [doi>10.1145/588058.588096]
• 9: Y. Cui and J. Widom. Run-time translation of view tuple deletions using data lineage. Technical Report, Standford University, 2001.
• 10: Yingwei Cui , Jennifer Widom , Janet L. Wiener, Tracing the lineage of view data in a warehousing environment, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), v.25 n.2, p.179-227, June 2000 [doi>10.1145/357775.357777]
• 11: Umeshwar Dayal , Philip A. Bernstein, On the correct translation of update operations on relational views, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), v.7 n.3, p.381-416, Sept. 1982 [doi>10.1145/319732.319740]
• 12: Michael R. Garey , David S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 1979
• 13: IBM. IBM DB2 Universal Database SQL Reference. http://www.ibm.com/software/data/db2/.
• 14: Arthur M. Keller, Algorithms for translating view updates to database updates for views involving selections, projections, and joins, Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systems, p.154-163, March 25-27, 1985, Portland, Oregon, United States [doi>10.1145/325405.325423]
• 15: Jens Lechtenbörger , Gottfried Vossen, On the computation of relational view complements, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), v.28 n.2, p.175-208, June 2003 [doi>10.1145/777943.777946]
• 16: Oracle. SQL Reference. http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/database10g.html.
• 17: E. Rahm and H. H. Do. Data cleaning: Problems and current approaches. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 23(4), 2000.
• 18: SQL server. MSDN Library. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library.
• 19: W. C. Tan. Containment of relational queries with annotation propagation. In DBPL, 2003.
• 20: J. Widom. Trio: A system for integrated management of data, accuracy, and lineage. In CIDR, 2005.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.2 ANALYSIS OF ALGORITHMS AND PROBLEM COMPLEXITY
      F.2.m Miscellaneous

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.2 DATABASE MANAGEMENT
      H.2.4 Systems
          Subjects: Relational databases

General Terms:
Algorithms, Theory

Keywords:
annotations, provenance, view updates