Data processing: database and file management or data structures – Database design – Data structure types
Reexamination Certificate
1998-05-11
2001-08-07
Homere, Jean R. (Department: 2777)
Data processing: database and file management or data structures
Database design
Data structure types
C707S793000, C707S793000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06272502
ABSTRACT:
The invention concerns a database system which provides multiple views of the database, which views are refreshed in response to different events, and thus refreshed at different times. The system maintains data consistency within groups of the views, despite the different refreshing approaches taken for the different views.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
FIG. 1
illustrates a database DB, which contains data units
3
, which, for simplicity, are shown organized into rows R
1
, R
2
, . . . RN and columns C
1
, C
2
, . . . CM. Users can query the database, by commanding a database management system to retrieve a specified collection of the data units.
For example, assume that the database is a nationwide telephone directory. A user may issue a query requesting retrieval of all telephone numbers assigned to parties named Miller, who live on Main Street. The management system will return these telephone numbers to the user.
In many situations, it is convenient for users of the database DB to deal with a subset of the database, rather than with the database itself. These subsets are termed “views.” Continuing the example given above, one view may contain all telephone data within the state of New Jersey. If the user issues the same query identified above, but to this view instead of to the database as-a-whole, only telephone numbers in New Jersey would be retrieved.
Two types of view are commonly used. In one type, queries examine the data contained within the database, and computes the query on-the-fly. In the example given above, only New Jersey data would be examined.
In this type of view, the query software involved is somewhat more complicated, and if the view is defined in terms of a particular type of operation, termed a “join,” then queries will run more slowly against this type of view than they would if the data were structured as in the view tuple. However, this disadvantage is offset by the fact that the query command is simpler for the user to formulate. Also, this type of view facilitates storing data in a normalized fashion, thereby removing update anomalies.
In using this type of view, the user specifies the view to be queried, and formulates a query. The user need not be concerned with the details of where the New Jersey data is located, or how it is represented, within the database DB. The query software deals with the location and representation.
The other type of view is termed a materialization of the view. In this type of view, the reformulated data corresponding to the view is actually copied into another storage location, which may be another location within the database, or a location outside the database. Users can query this materialization, independent of other users who query the database itself. Views V
1
-V
3
represent materialized views. The hatched data items are copied into the storage locations, as indicated by the arrows.
However, the use of materialized views can create its own problem. If changes occur to the data items
3
within the database, then the copies of these data items contained in the views V
1
-V
3
will not necessarily correspond to the hatched original data items. Consequently, a user of a view may read data which is not current, and if the user reads multiple data items, the items may be mutually inconsistent.
One solution to this problem is to update the views whenever a change occurs in a data item
3
. However, this solution imposes undesired overhead upon the system, and slows data retrieval by users. Consequently, it will often be desirable to defer view updates until a later time.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In one form of the invention, a database system supports more than one class of view, and the classes are refreshed at different times. The invention maintains data consistency within selected groups of the views, despite the different refreshing rates. This is accomplished by properly coordinating the refreshing operations.
REFERENCES:
patent: 4627019 (1986-12-01), Ng
patent: 5276870 (1994-01-01), Shan et al.
patent: 5287496 (1994-02-01), Chen et al.
patent: 5317731 (1994-05-01), Dias et al.
patent: 5403639 (1995-04-01), Belsan et al.
patent: 5581753 (1996-12-01), Terry et al.
patent: 5829001 (1998-10-01), Li et al.
patent: 5873098 (1999-02-01), Bamford et al.
patent: 5884325 (1999-03-01), Bauer et al.
patent: 5913029 (1999-06-01), Shostak
patent: 5924103 (1999-07-01), Ahmed et al.
patent: 5926816 (1999-07-01), Bauer et al.
patent: 5956713 (1999-09-01), Bamford et al.
patent: 5956731 (1999-09-01), Bamford et al.
patent: 5963959 (1999-10-01), Sun et al.
“Deriving Production Rules for Incremental View Maintenance,” by Ceri & Widom. Sep. 1991.
“Incremental Maintenance of Views with Duplicates,” by Griffin & Libkin. May 1995.
“Principles and Techniques in the Design of ADMS,” by Roussopoulos and Kang. Dec. 1986.
“Data Integration using Self-Maintainable Views,” by Gupta, Jagadish, and Mumick. unknown date.
“Maintenance of Materialized Views: Problems, Techniques, and Applications,” by Gupta & Mumick. Unknown Date.
“The Rejuvenation of Materialized Views,” by Mumick. Unknown Date.
“Incremental Recomputation of Active Relational Expressions,” by Qian & Widerhold.
“View Maintenance in a Warehousing Environment,” by Zhuge, Garcia-Molina, Hammer, and Widom. Unknown Date.
“Currency-Based Updates to Distributed Materialized Views,” Segev & Fang. Feb. 1990.
“Updating Distributed Materialized Views,” by Segev & Park. 1999.
“Efficiently Updating Materialized Views,” by Blakely, Larson, and Tompa. Unknown Date.
“Maintaining Views Incrementally,” by Gupta, Mumick, and Subrahmanian. Unknown Date.
“Incremental Maintenance of Views with Duplicates,” by Griffin & Libkin. Unknown Date.
“View Maintenance Issues for the Chronicle Data Model,” by Jagadish, Mumick, and Silberschatz. Unknown Date.
“Algorithms for Deferred View Maintenance,” by Colby, Griffin, Libkin, Mumick, and Trickey. 1996.
“Concurrency Control Theory for Deferred Materialized Views,” by Kawaguchi, Lieuwen, Mumick, Quass, and Ross. Unknown Date.
“An Algebraic Approach to Supporting Multiple Deferred Views,” by Colby and Griffin. Unknown Date.
“A Performance Analysis of View Materialization Strategies,” by Hanson. Dec. 1987.
“Aggregate-Query Processing in Data Warehousing Environments,” by Gupta, Harinarayan, and Quass. unknown date.
“Using Object-Oriented Principles to Optimize Update Propagation to Materialized Views,” by Kuno and Rundensteiner. Unknown Date.
“The Multiview OODB View System: Design and implementation,” by Kuno and Rundensteiner. Unknown Date.
“Incorporating Computed Relations in Relational Databases,” by Maier and Warren. Unknown Date.
“Maintenance of Views,” by Shmueli and Hari. Unknown Date.
“The ADMS project: Views “R” Us,” by Roussopoulos, Chen, Kelley, Delis, and Papakonstaninou. Unknown Date.
“Transformational Framework for the Automatic Control of Derived Data,” by Koenig and Paige. Unknown Date.
“An Incremental Access Method for ViewCache: Concept, Algorithms, and Cost Analysis,” by Roussopoulos. Sep. 1991.
Colby Latha Sankar
Kawaguchi Akira
Lieuwen Daniel Francis
Ross Kenneth A.
Homere Jean R.
Lucent Technologies - Inc.
LandOfFree
Refreshing materialized views of a database to maintain... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Refreshing materialized views of a database to maintain..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Refreshing materialized views of a database to maintain... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2475381