Mu˜ noz Jim´ enez University of Santiago de Chile Yahoo! Labs LatAm Joint work with F. Ferrarotti, S. Hartmann, S. Link, M. Marin DEXA 2012 @ Vienna, Austria, 3rd September 2012 Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 1/24
implication problem for a tractable and expressive class of XML keys. Performance Analysis: Implication problem over large sets of XML Keys. Non-redundant covers of XML keys and validation of XML documents. Our experiments show that reasoning about expressive notions of XML keys can be done efficiently in practice and scales well. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 2/24
integration. XML ↔ data storage ↔ data processing. Both industry and academia have long since recognized the importance of keys in XML data management. Several notions of XML keys have been proposed. Most influential is due to Buneman et al. who defined keys on the basis of an XML tree model similar to the one suggested by DOM and XPath. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 4/24
an XML document) E E E A E E A A A E E E A Member Team rol A Team Member rol A Leader Team rol E E E S Smith E S Dexter E S Cooper E E S William E S Bell E A Team Member rol E E S Dexter E E S Cooper A E E S William E S Bell E A E E S Davis E S Brook E S John project db team Riders team tname Coyotes pname Phobia MediaLow pname project tname employee employee employee name name lname fname lname fname name fname lname employee name fname lname employee rol Team Member name fname lname employee Team Leader rol name fname lname Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 5/24
rules) (a) A project node is identified by pname, no matter where the project node appears in the document. (b) A team node can be identified by tname relatively to a project node. (c) Within any given subtree rooted at team, an employee node is identified by name. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 6/24
rules) (a) A project node is identified by pname, no matter where the project node appears in the document. Absolute key (b) A team node can be identified by tname relatively to a project node. Relative key (c) Within any given subtree rooted at team, an employee node is identified by name. Relative key Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 6/24
tasks in database management. The hope is that keys will turn out to be equally beneficial for XML. In practice, expressive yet tractable notions of XML keys have been ignored so far. We initiate an empirical study of the fragment of XML keys with nonempty sets of simple key paths. One of the most fundamental questions on keys is: Can we decide if a new key holds given a set of known keys? (Logical Implication Problem.) Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 7/24
as business rules) (a) A project node is identified by pname, no matter where the project node appears in the document. (b) A team node can be identified by tname relatively to a project node. (c) Within any given subtree rooted at team, an employee node is identified by name. Suppose, the consideration of a further key: (d) A project node can be identified in the document by its child nodes pname and team. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 8/24
as business rules) (a) A project node is identified by pname, no matter where the project node appears in the document. (b) A team node can be identified by tname relatively to a project node. (c) Within any given subtree rooted at team, an employee node is identified by name. Suppose, the consideration of a further key: (d) A project node can be identified in the document by its child nodes pname and team. key (a) actually implies (d)!! because (d) is a superkey of (a). Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 8/24
value equal to v (u =v v) if the trees rooted at u and v are isomorphic by an isomorphism that is the identity on string values. (e.g., element nodes employee for “Dexter Cooper”) E E E A E E A A A E E E A Member Team rol A Team Member rol A Leader Team rol E E E S Smith E S Dexter E S Cooper E E S William E S Bell E A Team Member rol E E S Dexter E E S Cooper A E E S William E S Bell E A E E S Davis E S Brook E S John project db team Riders team tname Coyotes pname Phobia MediaLow pname project tname employee employee employee name name lname fname lname fname name fname lname employee name fname lname employee rol Team Member name fname lname employee Team Leader rol name fname lname Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 9/24
of XML keys) (a) A project node is identified by pname, no matter where the project node appears in the document. (ε, (project, {pname})) (b) A team node can be identified by tname relatively to a project node. (project, (team, {tname})) (c) Within any give subtree rooted at team, an employee node is identified by name. ( ∗.team, (employee, {name})) (d) A project node can be identified by its child nodes pname and team. (ε, (project, {pname, team})) Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 10/24
ϕ, denoted by Σ |= ϕ, iff every finite XML tree T that satisfies all σ ∈ Σ also satisfies ϕ. Implication Problem for a class C of XML keys: given any Σ ∪ {ϕ} in C, decide whether Σ |= ϕ. e.g., let be Σ = {(a), (b), (c)} and ϕ = (d), then Σ |= ϕ is true. e.g., let be Σ = {(a), (b)} and ϕ = (c), then Σ |= ϕ is false. Hartmann & Link characterize the implication problem for the class K of XML keys in terms of the of reachability problem for fixed nodes in a suitable digraph. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 11/24
Link, 2009) 0000 0000 0000 0000 1111 1111 1111 1111 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 0000 0000 0000 0000 1111 1111 1111 1111 E S E db E E public national project E S E project E S E S (1) (3) E E E national public (2) year pname pname year × × p p1 p2 p′ rϕ = qϕ r′ ϕ rϕ 1 rϕ 2 qϕ q′ ϕ q′ ϕ xϕ 1 xϕ 1 xϕ 2 xϕ 2 v′ 1 v′ 1 v′ 2 v′ 2 w1 w1 w′ 1 w′ 1 (a) Mini tree TΣ,ϕ db E E E E E S S public national project E year pname × × qϕ q′ ϕ (b) Witness graph GΣ,ϕ ϕ = (ε, (public. ∗.project, {pname.S, year.S})) ❦ ❦ Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 12/24
for Mini-tree & Witness-graph. db E E E E E S S public national project E year pname × × qϕ q′ ϕ (c) Witness graph GΣ,ϕ Node 1 Node 2 vertexEle Node 1 edgeEle nodeEle (public) Node 3 Node 0 vertexEle Node 2 edgeEle edgeEle nodeEle (national) Node 4 Node 6 Node 1 vertexEle Node 3 edgeEle edgeEle edgeEle nodeEle (project) (S) Node 7 (db) vertexEle edgeEle nodeEle Node 0 L ..... (d) Adj. list for GΣ,ϕ Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 13/24
the validation of XML documents against keys are crucial to ensure the consistency and semantic correctness of data stored or exchanged between applications. We use our implementation of the implication problem to compute non-redundant covers for sets of XML keys. Which in turn can be used to significantly speed up the process of XML document validation against sets of XML keys. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 14/24
Keys Fact Σ is non-redundant if there is no key ψ ∈ Σ such that Σ − {ψ} |= ψ. Algorithm 1: Non-redundant Cover for XML keys Input : Finite set Σ of XML keys Output: A non-redundant cover for Σ Θ = Σ; 1 foreach key ψ ∈ Σ do 2 if Θ − {ψ} |= ψ then 3 Θ = Θ − {ψ}; 4 return Θ; 5 6 This set can be computed in O(|Σ| × (max{|ψ| : ψ ∈ Σ})2) time. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 15/24
the implication problem. (ii) The viability of computing non-redundant cover sets to speed up the validation of XML documents against XML keys. For (i) we generated large sets of XML keys in the following two systematic ways: 1. using a manually defined set of 5 to 10 XML keys as seeds, we computed new implied keys by successively applying the inference rules from the axiomatization presented by Hartmann & Link (2009). 2. we defined some non-implied XML keys, adding witness edges keeping q ϕ not reachable from q′ ϕ . For (ii) we generated sets of keys following the same strategy. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 16/24
If we apply the interaction rule to - (issue, (articles, {article.title.S})) - (issue.articles, (article, {title.S})) We derived the implied key - (issue, (articles.article, {title.S})) We applied the interaction, context-target, subnodes, context-path containment, target-path containment, subnodes-epsilon and prefix-epsilon rules whenever possible. Non-implied keys E E E E E E E E S E S author db conference issue articles article last first qϕ q′ ϕ ℓ0 = content Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 19/24
very expensive XPath queries. SigmodRecord (issue, (articles.article, {title.S})) - there are 1503 nodes in the XPath query “//issue/articles/article”. (ε, (issue.articles.article.authors.author, {S})) - there are 3737 nodes in the XPath query “//issue/articles/article/authors/author”. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 22/24
To demonstrate that there are expressive classes of XML keys that can be reasoned about efficiently. 2 To show that our observations on the problem of deciding implication has immediate consequences for other perennial task in XML database management. [1.1] We studied a fragment of XML keys with nonempty sets of simple key paths. [1.1.1] Presenting an efficient implementation for the implication problem. [1.1.2] Showing through experiments that the proposed algorithm runs fast in practice and scales well. [2.1] We studied the problem of validating an XML document against a set of XML keys. [2.2] Presenting an optimization method for this validation via the computation of non-redundant cover sets of XML keys. [2.3] Our experiments show that enormous time savings can be achieved in practice. Introduction RW & Motivation XML Keys Results Conclusion 23/24
| ε | Q.Q | ∗ where ℓ ∈ L is a label, ε is the empty word, “.” is the concat operator, and “ ∗” is the wildcard. For nodes v and v′ of an XML tree T, the value intersection of v[[Q]] and v′[[Q]] is given by v[[Q]] ∩v v′[[Q]] = {(w, w′) | w ∈ v[[Q]], w′ ∈ v′[[Q]], w =v w′} We define semantic closure by: Σ∗ = {ϕ ∈ C | Σ |= ϕ} and also syntactic closure by: Σ+ ℜ = {ϕ | Σ ⊢ℜ ϕ} A set of rules ℜ is sound (complete) if Σ+ ℜ ⊆ Σ∗(Σ∗ ⊆ Σ+ ℜ ) A sound and complete set of rules is called axiomatization 1/2
(Hartman & Link, 2009) Let Σ ∪ {ϕ} be a finite set of keys in the class K. We have Σ |= ϕ if and only if qϕ is reachable from q′ ϕ in GΣ,ϕ. Algorithm 2: XML key implication in K Input : finite set of XML keys Σ ∪ {ϕ} in K Output: yes, if Σ |= ϕ; no, otherwise Construct GΣ,ϕ for Σ and ϕ; 1 if qϕ is reachable from q′ ϕ in G then return yes; else return no; end if 2 2/2
emunoz
sansan_randd
eumesy
ryotoitoi
wata909
upura
beomi
langstat
masatoto
yukiar
ksudoh
hotekagi
jonyablonski
paulrobertlloyd
danielanewman
morganepeng
aki_iinuma
samlambert
holman
skipperchong
addyosmani
eileencodes
bermonpainter
![Questions? THANKS! Emir Mu˜ noz Jim´ enez– [email protected] Introduction RW](https://files.speakerdeck.com/presentations/e985c220dd8701303a3e663cad7581f3/slide_25.jpg){kind=link}
