Abstract

In this paper, we initiate a theoretical study of what we call the join covering problem. We are given a natural join query instance QQ on nn attributes and mm relations (Ri)i∈[m](R_i)_{i \in [m]}. Let JQ= ⋈i=1mRiJ_{Q} = \ \Join_{i=1}^m R_i denote the join output of QQ. In addition to QQ, we are given a parameter Δ:1≤Δ≤nΔ: 1\le Δ\le n and our goal is to compute the smallest subset TQ,Δ⊆JQ\mathcal{T}_{Q, Δ} \subseteq J_{Q} such that every tuple in JQJ_{Q} is within Hamming distance Δ−1Δ- 1 from some tuple in TQ,Δ\mathcal{T}_{Q, Δ}. The join covering problem captures both computing the natural join from database theory and constructing a covering code with covering radius Δ−1Δ- 1 from coding theory, as special cases. We consider the combinatorial version of the join covering problem, where our goal is to determine the worst-case ∣TQ,Δ∣|\mathcal{T}_{Q, Δ}| in terms of the structure of QQ and value of ΔΔ. One obvious approach to upper bound ∣TQ,Δ∣|\mathcal{T}_{Q, Δ}| is to exploit a distance property (of Hamming distance) from coding theory and combine it with the worst-case bounds on output size of natural joins (AGM bound hereon) due to Atserias, Grohe and Marx [SIAM J. of Computing'13]. Somewhat surprisingly, this approach is not tight even for the case when the input relations have arity at most two. Instead, we show that using the polymatroid degree-based bound of Abo Khamis, Ngo and Suciu [PODS'17] in place of the AGM bound gives us a tight bound (up to constant factors) on the ∣TQ,Δ∣|\mathcal{T}_{Q, Δ}| for the arity two case. We prove lower bounds for ∣TQ,Δ∣|\mathcal{T}_{Q, Δ}| using well-known classes of error-correcting codes e.g, Reed-Solomon codes. We can extend our results for the arity two case to general arity with a polynomial gap between our upper and lower bounds.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

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

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.