|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
We study the problem of processing subgraph queries on a database that consists of a set of graphs. The answer to a subgraph query is the set of graphs in the database that are supergraphs of the query. In this article, we propose an efficient index, FG*-index, to solve this problem. The cost of processing a subgraph query using most existing indexes mainly consists of two parts: the index probing cost and the candidate verification cost. Index probing is to find the query in the index, or to find the graphs from which we can generate a candidate answer set for the query. Candidate verification is to test whether each graph in the candidate set is indeed a supergraph of the query. We design FG*-index to minimize these two costs as follows. FG*-index consists of three components: the FG-index, the feature-index, and the FAQ-index. First, the FG-index employs the concept of Frequent subGraph (FG) to allow the set of queries that are FGs to be answered without candidate verification. We call this set of queries FG-queries. We can enlarge the set of FG-queries so that more queries can be answered without candidate verification; however, a larger set of FG-queries implies a larger FG-index and hence the index probing cost also increases. We propose the feature-index to reduce the index probing cost. The feature-index uses features to filter false results that are matched in the FG-index, so that we can quickly find the truly matching graphs for a query. For processing non-FG-queries, we propose the FAQ-index, which is dynamically constructed from the set of Frequently Asked non-FG-Queries (FAQs). Using the FAQ-index, verification is not required for processing FAQs and only a small number of candidates need to be verified for processing non-FG-queries that are not frequently asked. Finally, a comprehensive set of experiments verifies that query processing using FG*-index is up to orders of magnitude more efficient than state-of-the-art indexes and it is also more scalable. REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
General Terms:
Keywords:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||