Dynamic conjunctive queries

Abstract The article investigates classes of queries maintainable by conjunctive queries and their extensions and restrictions in the dynamic complexity framework of Patnaik and Immerman. Starting from the basic language of quantifier-free conjunctions of positive atoms, it studies the impact of additional operators and features — such as union, atomic negation and quantification — on the dynamic expressiveness, for the standard semantics as well as for Δ-semantics. The article identifies a linear hierarchy of five main fragments for the standard semantics, characterized by the addition of (1) arbitrary quantification and atomic negation, (2) existential quantification and atomic negation, (3) existential quantification, (4) atomic negation (but no quantification), and by (5) no addition to the basic language at all. While fragments (3), (4) and (5) can be separated, it remains open whether fragments (1), (2) and (3) are actually different. The fragments arising from Δ-semantics are also subsumed by the standard fragments (1), (2) and (4). Other fragments of DynFO also fit into this linear hierarchy.

[1]  Neil Immerman,et al.  Dyn-FO: A Parallel, Dynamic Complexity Class , 1997, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[2]  Christoph Koch,et al.  Incremental query evaluation in a ring of databases , 2010, PODS.

[3]  William Hesse,et al.  Conditional and Unconditional Separations of Dynamic Complexity Classes , 2003 .

[4]  Thomas Schwentick,et al.  Dynamic conjunctive queries , 2017, Journal of computer and system sciences (Print).

[5]  Alon Itai,et al.  Maintenance of views , 1984, SIGMOD '84.

[6]  Thomas Schwentick,et al.  The dynamic complexity of formal languages , 2008, TOCL.

[7]  Kousha Etessami,et al.  Dynamic Tree Isomorphism via First-Order Updates. , 1998, PODS 1998.

[8]  Neil Immerman,et al.  Dynamic computational complexity , 2003 .

[9]  Thomas Schwentick,et al.  Dynamic Complexity Theory Revisited , 2005, Theory of Computing Systems.

[10]  Jianwen Su,et al.  Deterministic FOIES are strictly weaker , 2004, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[11]  Neil Immerman,et al.  Dyn-FO: A Parallel, Dynamic Complexity Class , 1997, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[12]  William Hesse,et al.  The dynamic complexity of transitive closure is in DynTC0 , 2001, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Sebastian Siebertz,et al.  Dynamic definability , 2012, ICDT '12.

[14]  Limsoon Wong,et al.  On Impossibility of Decremental Recomputation of Recursive Queries in Relational Calculus and SQL , 1995, DBPL.

[15]  Thomas Schwentick,et al.  On the quantifier-free dynamic complexity of Reachability , 2013, Inf. Comput..

[16]  Limsoon Wong,et al.  Incremental recomputation in local languages , 2003, Inf. Comput..

[17]  Jianwen Su,et al.  First-Order Incremental Evaluation of Datalog Queries , 1993, DBPL.

[18]  Inderpal Singh Mumick,et al.  Incremental Evaluation Of Datalog Queries , 1999 .

[19]  Ashok K. Chandra,et al.  Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases , 1977, STOC '77.

[20]  Jianwen Su,et al.  Arity Bounds in First-Order Incremental Evaluation and Definition of Polynomial Time Database Queries , 1998, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[21]  Kousha Etessami,et al.  Dynamic tree isomorphism via first-order updates to a relational database , 1998, PODS '98.

[22]  Amir Shaikhha,et al.  DBToaster: higher-order delta processing for dynamic, frequently fresh views , 2012, The VLDB Journal.

[23]  V. S. Subrahmanian,et al.  Maintaining views incrementally , 1993, SIGMOD Conference.