Beyond worst-case analysis for joins with Minesweeper

Proceedings of the ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 234-245

  Ngo, Hung Q ^a   Nguyen, Dung T ^a   Ré, Christopher ^b   Rudra, Atri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive algorithm; Beta acyclic queries; Bounded treewidth; Certificate; Instance optimality; Join algorithms; Triangle query

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE ALGORITHMS; DATABASE SYSTEMS;

BETA-ACYCLIC QUERIES; BOUNDED TREEWIDTH; CERTIFICATE; INSTANCE OPTIMALITY; JOIN ALGORITHM; TRIANGLE QUERY;

TREES (MATHEMATICS);

EID: 84904308650     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2594538.2594547     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (52)

1. S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu, Foundations of Databases, Addison-Wesley, 1995.
2. I. Adler, G. Gottlob, and M. Grohe, Hypertree width and related hypergraph invariants, European J. Combin., 28 (2007).
3. P. Afshani, J. Barbay, and T. M. Chan, Instance-optimal geometric algorithms, in FOCS, 2009, pp. 129-138.
4. N. Ailon, B. Chazelle, K. L. Clarkson, D. Liu, W. Mulzer, and C. Seshadhri, Self-improving algorithms, SIAM J. Comput., 40 (2011), pp. 350-375.
5. N. Alon, On the number of subgraphs of prescribed type of graphs with a given number of edges, Israel J. Math., 38 (1981).
6. S. Arnborg and A. Proskurowski, Linear time algorithms for NP-hard problems restricted to partial k-trees, Discrete Appl. Math., 23 (1989), pp. 11-24.
7. A. Atserias, M. Grohe, and D. Marx, Size bounds and query plans for relational joins, 2008, pp. 739-748.
8. J. Barbay and C. Kenyon, Adaptive intersection and t-threshold problems, in SODA, 2002, pp. 390-399.
9. Alternation and redundancy analysis of the intersection problem, ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 4 (2008).
10. J. Barbay and A. López-Ortiz, Efficient algorithms for context query evaluation over a tagged corpus, in SCCC, M. Arenas and B. Bustos, eds., IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 11-17.
11. C. Beeri, R. Fagin, D. Maier, A. Mendelzon, J. Ullman, and M. Yannakakis, Properties of acyclic database schemes, in STOC, New York, NY, USA, 1981, ACM, pp. 355-362.
12. C. Beeri, R. Fagin, D. Maier, and M. Yannakakis, On the desirability of acyclic database schemes, J. ACM, 30 (1983), pp. 479-513.
13. C. Berge, Graphs and Hypergraphs, Elsevier Science Ltd, 1985.
14. J. Brault-Baron, A Negative Conjunctive Query is Easy if and only if it is Beta-Acyclic, in CSL 12, vol. 16, 2012, pp. 137-151.
15. A. Brouwer and A. Kolen, A super-balanced hypergraph has a nest point, (1980). Tech. Report.
16. A. K. Chandra and P. M. Merlin, Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases, in STOC, 1977.
17. C. Chekuri and A. Rajaraman, Conjunctive query containment revisited, Theor. Comput. Sci., 239 (2000), pp. 211-229.
18. R. Dechter and J. Pearl, Tree clustering for constraint networks., Artificial Intelligence, 38 (1989), pp. 353-366.
19. E. D. Demaine, A. López-Ortiz, and J. I. Munro, Adaptive set intersections, unions, and differences, in SODA, 2000, pp. 743-752.
20. D. Duris, Hypergraph acyclicity and extension preservation theorems, in LICS, 2008, pp. 418-427.
21. Some characterizations of and β-acyclicity of hypergraphs., Information Processing Letters, 112 (2012).
22. V. Estivill-Castro and D. Wood, A survey of adaptive sorting algorithms, ACM Comput. Surv., 24 (1992), pp. 441-476.
23. R. Fagin, Degrees of acyclicity for hypergraphs and relational database schemes, J. ACM, 30 (1983), pp. 514-550.
24. R. Fagin, A. Lotem, and M. Naor, Optimal aggregation algorithms for middleware, J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 66 (2003), pp. 614-656.
25. R. Fagin, A. O. Mendelzon, and J. D. Ullman, A simplied universal relation assumption and its properties, TODS, 7 (1982).
26. J. Flum, M. Frick, and M. Grohe, Query evaluation via tree-decompositions, J. ACM, 49 (2002), pp. 716-752.
27. E. C. Freuder, Complexity of k-tree structured constraint satisfaction problems, in AAAI, AAAI'90, AAAI Press, 1990, pp. 4-9.
28. N. Goodman and O. Shmueli, Tree queries: a simple class of relational queries, ACM Trans. Database Syst., 7 (1982).
29. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello, Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries, J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 64 (2002), pp. 579-627.
30. G. Gottlob, Z. Miklós, and T. Schwentick, Generalized hypertree decompositions: Np-hardness and tractable variants, J. ACM, 56 (2009), pp. 30:1-30:32.
31. M. Grohe, The parameterized complexity of database queries, in PODS, 2001, pp. 82-92.
32. F. K. Hwang and S. Lin, A simple algorithm for merging two disjoint linearly ordered sets, SIAM J. Comput., 1 (1972), pp. 31-39.
33. A. Itai and M. Rodeh, Finding a minimum circuit in a graph, SIAM J. Comput., 7 (1978), pp. 413-423.
34. M. N. Kolountzakis, G. L. Miller, R. Peng, and C. E. Tsourakakis, Efficient triangle counting in large graphs via degree-based vertex partitioning, Internet Mathematics, 8 (2012), pp. 161-185.
35. D. Maier and J. D. Ullman, Connections in acyclic hypergraphs: extended abstract, in PODS, ACM, 1982, pp. 34-39.
36. D. Marx, Approximating fractional hypertree width, ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 6 (2010).
37. H. Q. Ngo, D. T. Nguyen, C. Ré, and A. Rudra, Beyond worst-case analysis for joins with minesweeper, CoRR, abs/1302.0914 (2014).
38. H. Q. Ngo, E. Porat, C. Ré, and A. Rudra, Worst-case optimal join algorithms: [extended abstract], in PODS, 2012, pp. 37-48.
39. S. Ordyniak, D. Paulusma, and S. Szeider, Satisfiability of Acyclic and Almost Acyclic CNF Formulas, in FSTTCS 2010, vol. 8, 2010.
40. A. Pagh and R. Pagh, Scalable computation of acyclic joins, in PODS, 2006, pp. 225-232.
41. C. H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis, On the complexity of database queries, in PODS, 1997, pp. 12-19.
42. M. Pǎtraşcu, Towards polynomial lower bounds for dynamic problems, in STOC, 2010, pp. 603-610.
43. R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke, Database Management Systems, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 3 ed., 2003.
44. T. Roughgarden, Lecture notes for CS369N "beyond worst-case analysis". http://theory.stanford.edu/tim/f09/f09.html, 2009.
45. Problem set #1 (CS369N: Beyond worst-case analysis). http://theory. stanford.edu/ tim/f11/hw1.pdf, 2011.
46. S. Suri and S. Vassilvitskii, Counting triangles and the curse of the last reducer, in WWW, 2011, pp. 607-614.
47. M. Y. Vardi, The complexity of relational query languages (extended abstract), in STOC, 1982, pp. 137-146.
48. V. Vassilevska and R. Williams, Finding a maximum weight triangle in n3-δ time, with applications, in STOC, 2006, pp. 225-231.
49. V. Vassilevska and R. Williams, Finding, minimizing, and counting weighted subgraphs, in STOC, ACM, 2009, pp. 455-464.
50. T. L. Veldhuizen, Leapfrog triejoin: a worst-case optimal join algorithm, ICDT, (2014). To Appear.
51. D. E. Willard, An algorithm for handling many relational calculus queries efficiently, J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 65 (2002), pp. 295-331.
52. M. Yannakakis, Algorithms for acyclic database schemes, in VLDB, 1981, pp. 82-94.