skip to main content
10.1145/1142351.1142399acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Relational lenses: a language for updatable views

Published:26 June 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

We propose a novel approach to the classical view update problem. The view update problem arises from the fact that modifications to a database view may not correspond uniquely to modifications on the underlying database; we need a means of determining an "update policy" that guides how view updates are reflected in the database. Our approach is to define a bi-directional query language, in which every expression can be read bot(from left to right) as a view definition and (from right to left) as an update policy. The primitives of this language are based on standard relational operators. Its type system, which includes record-level predicates and functional dependencies, plays a crucial role in guaranteeing that update policies are well-behaved, in a precise sense, and that they are total—i.e., able to handle arbitrary changes to the view.

References

  1. François Bancilhon and Nicolas Spyratos. Update semantics of relational views. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 6(4):557--575, December 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Umeshwar Dayal and Philip A. Bernstein. On the correct translation of update operations on relational views. TODS, 7(3):381--416, September 1982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Nathan Foster, Michael B. Greenwald, Christian Kirkegaard, Benjamin C. Pierce, and Alan Schmitt. Exploiting schemas in data synchronization. In Database Programming Languages (DBPL), August 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Nathan Foster, Michael B. Greenwald, Jonathan T. Moore, Benjamin C. Pierce, and Alan Schmitt. Combinators for bi-directional tree transformations: A linguistic approach to the view update problem. In ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), Long Beach, California, pages 233--246, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G. Gottlob, P. Paolini, and R. Zicari. Properties and update semantics of consistent views. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 13(4):486--524, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Stephane J. Hegner. An order-based theory of updates for closed database views. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 40:63--125, 2004. Summary in Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, 2002, pp. 230--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Arthur M. Keller. Algorithms for translating view updates to database updates for views involving selections, projections, and joins. In ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Portland, Oregon, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Arthur M. Keller. Comment on Bancilhon and Spyratos' "Update semantics and relational views". ACM Trans. Database Syst., 12(3):521--523, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jens Lechtenbörger. The impact of the constant complement approach towards view updating. In ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, San Diego, California, pages 49--55. ACM, June 9-12 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Relational lenses: a language for updatable views

      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 '06: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
        June 2006
        382 pages
        ISBN:1595933182
        DOI:10.1145/1142351

        Copyright © 2006 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: 26 June 2006

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        PODS '06 Paper Acceptance Rate35of185submissions,19%Overall Acceptance Rate642of2,707submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader