Paper detail

Combined-Semantics Equivalence Is Decidable for a Practical Class of Conjunctive Queries

In this paper, we focus on the problem of determining whether two conjunctive ("CQ") queries posed on relational data are combined-semantics equivalent [9]. We continue the tradition of [2,5,9] of studying this problem using the tool of containment between queries. We introduce a syntactic necessary and sufficient condition for equivalence of queries belonging to a large natural language of "explicit-wave" combined-semantics CQ queries; this language encompasses (but is not limited to) all set, bag, and bag-set queries, and appears to cover all combined-semantics CQ queries that are expressible in SQL. Our result solves in the positive the decidability problem of determining combined-semantics equivalence for pairs of explicit-wave CQ queries. That is, for an arbitrary pair of combined-semantics CQ queries, it is decidable (i) to determine whether each of the queries is explicit wave, and (ii) to determine, in case both queries are explicit wave, whether or not they are combined-semantics equivalent, by using our syntactic criterion. (The problem of determining equivalence for general combined-semantics CQ queries remains open. Even so, our syntactic sufficient containment condition could still be used to determine that two general CQ queries are combined-semantics equivalent.) Our equivalence test, as well as our general sufficient condition for containment of combined-semantics CQ queries, reduce correctly to the special cases reported in [2,5] for set, bag, and bag-set semantics. Our containment and equivalence conditions also properly generalize the results of [9], provided that the latter are restricted to the language of (combined-semantics) CQ queries.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

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 map preview

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.