skip to main content
10.1145/375551.375592acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

On the complexity of join predicates

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 May 2001Publication History

ABSTRACT

We consider the complexity of join problems, focusing on equijoins, spatial-overlap joins, and set-containment joins. We use a graph pebbling model to characterize these joins combinatorially, by the length of their optimal pebbling strategies and computationally, by the complexity of discovering these strategies. Our results show that equijoins are the easiest of all joins, with optimal pebbling strategies that meet the lower bound over all join problems and that can be found in linear time. By contrast, spatial-overlap and set-containment joins are the hardest joins, with instances where optimal pebbling strategies reach the upper bound over all join problems and with the problem of discovering optimal pebbling strategies being NP-complete. For set-containment joins, we show that discovering the optimal pebbling is also MAX-SNP-Complete. As a consequence, we show that unless NP = P, there is a constant ∈o, such that this problem cannot be approximated within a factor of 1 + ∈Ο in polynomial time. Our results shed some light on the difficulty the applied community has had in finding “good” algorithms for spatial-overlap and set-containment joins.

References

  1. 1.S. Arora, C. Lund, R. Motwani, M. Sudan, and M. Szegedy. Proof verification and hardness of approximation problems. In 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 14-23, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.G. Graefe. Query evaluation techniques for large databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 25(2):73-170, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.O. G. unther. Efficient computation of spatial joins. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 50-59, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.F. Harary. Graph theory. Addison-Wesley, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. 5.S. Helmer and G. Moerkotte. Evaluation of main memory join algorithms for joins with set comparison join predicates. In VLDB'97, Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 386-395, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.T. H. Merrett, Y. Kambayashi, and H. Yasuura. Scheduling of page-fetches in join operations. In Very Large Data Bases, 7th International Conference, Proceedings, pages 488-498, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.G. Neyer and P. Widmayer. Singularities make spatial join scheduling hard. In International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC), 8th International Symposium, Proceedings, pages 293-302, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.J. A. Orenstein. Spatial query processing in an object-oriented database system. In Proceedings of the 1986 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 326-336, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.C. H. Papadimitriou. Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.C. H. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz. Combinatorial optimization: Algorithms and complexity. Prentice Hall, 1982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 11.C. H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. Optimization, approximation, and complexity classes (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 229-234, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 12.C. H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. The travelling salesman problem with distances 1 and 2. In Mathematics of Operations Research, pages 1-11, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13.J. M. Patel and D. J. DeWitt. Partition based spatial-merge join. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 259-270, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.K. Ramasamy, J. M. Patel, J. F. Naughton, and R. Kaushik. Set containment joins: The good, the bad and the ugly. In VLDB 2000, Proceedings of 26th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 351-362, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15.M. Stonebraker. Object relational DBMS: The next great wave. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On the complexity of join predicates

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          PODS '01: Proceedings of the twentieth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
          May 2001
          301 pages
          ISBN:1581133618
          DOI:10.1145/375551

          Copyright © 2001 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 May 2001

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          PODS '01 Paper Acceptance Rate26of99submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate642of2,707submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader