Paper detail

A Symbolic Approach to Proving Query Equivalence Under Bag Semantics

In database-as-a-service platforms, automated verification of query equivalence helps eliminate redundant computation in the form of overlapping sub-queries. Researchers have proposed two pragmatic techniques to tackle this problem. The first approach consists of reducing the queries to algebraic expressions and proving their equivalence using an algebraic theory. The limitations of this technique are threefold. It cannot prove the equivalence of queries with significant differences in the attributes of their relational operators. It does not support certain widely-used SQL features. Its verification procedure is computationally intensive. The second approach transforms this problem to a constraint satisfaction problem and leverages a general-purpose solver to determine query equivalence. This technique consists of deriving the symbolic representation of the queries and proving their equivalence by determining the query containment relationship between the symbolic expressions. While the latter approach addresses all the limitations of the former technique, it only proves the equivalence of queries under set semantics. However, in practice, database applications use bag semantics. In this paper, we introduce a novel symbolic approach for proving query equivalence under bag semantics. We transform the problem of proving query equivalence under bag semantics to that of proving the existence of a bijective, identity map between tuples returned by the queries on all valid inputs. We implement this symbolic approach in SPES and demonstrate that SPES proves the equivalence of a larger set of query pairs (95/232) under bag semantics compared to the state-of-the-art tools based on algebraic (30/232) and symbolic approaches (67/232) under set and bag semantics, respectively. Furthermore, SPES is 3X faster than the symbolic tool that proves equivalence under set semantics.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.