paper-BagRelationalPDBsAreHard/appendix.tex

207 lines
13 KiB
TeX

%!TEX root=./main.tex
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Missing details from Section~\ref{sec:background}}\label{sec:proofs-background}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{$\semK$-relations and $\semNX$-PDBs}\label{subsec:supp-mat-background}\label{subsec:supp-mat-krelations}
\input{app_notation-background}
\section{Missing details from Section~\ref{sec:hard}}
\label{app:single-mult-p}
\input{app_hardness-results}
\section{Missing Details from Section~\ref{sec:algo}}\label{sec:proofs-approx-alg}
\input{app_approx-alg-defs-and-examples}
\input{app_approx-alg-analysis}
\input{app_one-pass-analysis}
\input{app_samp-monom-analysis}
\subsection{Experimental Results}\label{app:subsec:experiment}
\input{experiments}
\section{Circuits}\label{app:sec-cicuits}
\subsection{Representing Polynomials with Circuits}\label{app:subsec-rep-poly-lin-circ}
\subsubsection{Circuits for query plans}
\label{sec:circuits-formal}
We now formalize circuits and the construction of circuits for SPJU queries.
As mentioned earlier, we represent lineage polynomials as arithmetic circuits over $\mathbb N$-valued variables with $+$, $\times$.
A circuit for query $Q$ and $\semNX$-PDB $\pxdb$ is a directed acyclic graph $\tuple{V_{Q,\pxdb}, E_{Q,\pxdb}, \phi_{Q,\pxdb}, \ell_{Q,\pxdb}}$ with vertices $V_{Q,\pxdb}$ and directed edges $E_{Q,\pxdb} \subset {V_{Q,\pxdb}}^2$.
The sink function $\phi_{Q,\pxdb} : \udom^n \rightarrow V_{Q,\pxdb}$ is a partial function that maps the tuples of the $n$-ary relation $Q(\pxdb)$ to vertices.
We require that $\phi_{Q,\pxdb}$'s range be limited to sink vertices (i.e., vertices with out-degree 0).
%We call a sink vertex not in the range of $\phi_R$ a \emph{dead sink}.
A function $\ell_{Q,\pxdb} : V_{Q,\pxdb} \rightarrow \{\;+,\times\;\}\cup \mathbb N \cup \vct X$ assigns a label to each node: Source nodes (i.e., vertices with in-degree 0) are labeled with constants or variables (i.e., $\mathbb N \cup \vct X$), while the remaining nodes are labeled with the symbol $+$ or $\times$.
We require that vertices have an in-degree of at most two.
%For the specifics on how to construct a circuit to encode the polynomials of all result tuples for a query and $\semNX$-PDB see \Cref{app:subsec-rep-poly-lin-circ}.
Note that we can construct circuits for \bis in time linear in the time required for deterministic query processing over a possible world of the \bi under the aforementioned assumption that $\abs{\pxdb} \leq c \cdot \abs{\db}$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsubsection{Circuit size vs. runtime}
\label{sec:circuit-runtime}
\newcommand{\bagdbof}{\textsc{bag}(\pxdb)}
We now connect the size of a circuit (where the size of a circuit is the number of vertices in the corresponding DAG) %\footnote{since each node has indegree at most two, this also is the same up to constants to counting the number of edges in the DAG.})
for a given SPJU query $Q$ and $\semNX$-PDB $\pxdb$ to
the runtime $\qruntime{Q,\dbbase}$ of the PDB's \dbbaseName $\dbbase$.
We do this formally by showing that the size of the circuit is asymptotically no worse than the corresponding runtime of a large class of deterministic query processing algorithms.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newcommand{\getpoly}[1]{\textbf{lin}\inparen{#1}}
Each vertex $v \in V_{Q,\pxdb}$ in the arithmetic circuit for
\[\tuple{V_{Q,\pxdb}, E_{Q,\pxdb}, \phi_{Q,\pxdb}, \ell_{Q,\pxdb}}\]
encodes a polynomial, realized as
\[\getpoly{v} = \begin{cases}
\sum_{v' : (v',v) \in E_{Q,\pxdb}} \getpoly{v'} & \textbf{if } \ell(v) = +\\
\prod_{v' : (v',v) \in E_{Q,\pxdb}} \getpoly{v'} & \textbf{if } \ell(v) = \times\\
\ell(v) & \textbf{otherwise}
\end{cases}\]
We define the circuit for a select-union-project-join $Q$ recursively by cases as follows. In each case, let $\tuple{V_{Q_i,\pxdb}, E_{Q_i,\pxdb}, \phi_{Q_{i},\pxdb}, \ell_{Q_i,\pxdb}}$ denote the circuit for subquery $Q_i$.
\caseheading{Base Relation}
Let $Q$ be a base relation $R$. We define one node for each tuple. Formally, let $V_{Q,\pxdb} = \comprehension{v_t}{t\in R}$, let $\phi_{Q,\pxdb}(t) = v_t$, let $\ell_{Q,\pxdb}(v_t) = R(t)$, and let $E_{Q,\pxdb} = \emptyset$.
This circuit has $|D_\Omega.R|$ vertices.
\caseheading{Selection}
Let $Q = \sigma_\theta \inparen{Q_1}$.
We re-use the circuit for $Q_1$. %, but define a new distinguished node $v_0$ with label $0$ and make it the sink node for all tuples that fail the selection predicate.
Formally, let $V_{Q,\pxdb} = V_{Q_1,\pxdb}$, let $\ell_{Q,\pxdb}(v_0) = 0$, and let $\ell_{Q,\pxdb}(v) = \ell_{Q_1,\pxdb}(v)$ for any $v \in V_{Q_1,\pxdb}$. Let $E_{Q,\pxdb} = E_{Q_1,\pxdb}$, and define
$$\phi_{Q,\pxdb}(t) =
\phi_{Q_{1}, \pxdb}(t) \text{ for } t \text{ s.t.}\; \theta(t).$$
Dead sinks are iteratively removed, and so
%\AH{While not explicit, I assume a reviewer would know that the notation above discards tuples/vertices not satisfying the selection predicate.}
%v_0 & \textbf{otherwise}
%\end{cases}$$
this circuit has at most $|V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|$ vertices.
\caseheading{Projection}
Let $Q = \pi_{\vct A} {Q_1}$.
We extend the circuit for ${Q_1}$ with a new set of sum vertices (i.e., vertices with label $+$) for each tuple in $Q$, and connect them to the corresponding sink nodes of the circuit for ${Q_1}$.
Naively, let $V_{Q,\pxdb} = V_{Q_1,\pxdb} \cup \comprehension{v_t}{t \in \pi_{\vct A} {Q_1}}$, let $\phi_{Q,\pxdb}(t) = v_t$, and let $\ell_{Q,\pxdb}(v_t) = +$. Finally let
$$E_{Q,\pxdb} = E_{Q_1,\pxdb} \cup \comprehension{(\phi_{Q_{1}, \pxdb}(t'), v_t)}{t = \pi_{\vct A} t', t' \in {Q_1}, t \in \pi_{\vct A} {Q_1}}$$
This formulation will produce vertices with an in-degree greater than two, a problem that we correct by replacing every vertex with an in-degree over two by an equivalent fan-in tree. The resulting structure has at most $|{Q_1}|-1$ new vertices.
% \AH{Is the rightmost operator \emph{supposed} to be a $-$? In the beginning we add $|\pi_{\vct A}{Q_1}|$ vertices.}
The corrected circuit thus has at most $|V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+|{Q_1}|$ vertices.
\caseheading{Union}
Let $Q = {Q_1} \cup {Q_2}$.
We merge graphs and produce a sum vertex for all tuples in both sides of the union.
Formally, let $V_{Q,\pxdb} = V_{Q_1,\pxdb} \cup V_{Q_2,\pxdb} \cup \comprehension{v_t}{t \in {Q_1} \cap {Q_2}}$, let $\ell_{Q,\pxdb}(v_t) = +$, and let
\[E_{Q,\pxdb} = E_{Q_1,\pxdb} \cup E_{Q_2,\pxdb} \cup \comprehension{(\phi_{Q_{1}, \pxdb}(t), v_t), (\phi_{Q_{2}, \pxdb}(t), v_t)}{t \in {Q_1} \cap {Q_2}}\]
\[
\phi_{Q,\pxdb}(t) = \begin{cases}
v_t & \textbf{if } t \in {Q_1} \cap {Q_1}\\
\phi_{Q_{1}, \pxdb}(t) & \textbf{if } t \not \in {Q_2}\\
\phi_{Q_{2}, \pxdb}(t) & \textbf{if } t \not \in {Q_1}\\
\end{cases}\]
This circuit has $|V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+|V_{Q_2,\pxdb}|+|{Q_1} \cap {Q_2}|$ vertices.
\caseheading{$k$-ary Join}
Let $Q = {Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}$.
We merge graphs and produce a multiplication vertex for all tuples resulting from the join
Naively, let $V_{Q,\pxdb} = V_{Q_1,\pxdb} \cup \ldots \cup V_{Q_k,\pxdb} \cup \comprehension{v_t}{t \in {Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}}$, let
{\small
\begin{multline*}
E_{Q,\pxdb} = E_{Q_1,\pxdb} \cup \ldots \cup E_{Q_k,\pxdb} \cup
\left\{\;
(\phi_{Q_{1}, \pxdb}(\pi_{\sch({Q_1})}t), v_t), \right.\\
\ldots, (\phi_{Q_k,\pxdb}(\pi_{\sch({Q_k})}t), v_t)
\;\left|\;t \in {Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}\;\right\}
\end{multline*}
}
Let $\ell_{Q,\pxdb}(v_t) = \times$, and let $\phi_{Q,\pxdb}(t) = v_t$
As in projection, newly created vertices will have an in-degree of $k$, and a fan-in tree is required.
There are $|{Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}|$ such vertices, so the corrected circuit has $|V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+\ldots+|V_{Q_k,\pxdb}|+(k-1)|{Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}|$ vertices.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{Lemma}\label{lem:circ-model-runtime}
\label{lem:circuits-model-runtime}
Given a $\semNX$-PDB $\pxdb$ with \dbbaseName $\dbbase$, and query plan $Q$, the runtime of $Q$ over $\dbbase$ has the same or greater complexity as the size of the lineage of $Q(\pxdb)$. That is, we have $\abs{V_{Q,\pxdb}} \leq (k-1)\qruntime{Q, \dbbase}$, where $k$ is the maximal degree of any polynomial in $Q(\pxdb)$.
\end{Lemma}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\noindent The proof is shown in \Cref{app:subsec-lem-lin-vs-qplan}.
%\subsection{Proof for \Cref{lem:circuits-model-runtime}}\label{app:subsec-lem-lin-vs-qplan}
\begin{proof}
Proof by induction. The base case is a base relation: $Q = R$ and is trivially true since $|V_{R,\pxdb}| = |D_\Omega.R|$.
For the inductive step, we assume that we have circuits for subplans $Q_1, \ldots, Q_n$ such that $|V_{Q_i,\pxdb}| \leq (k_i-1)\qruntime{Q_i,\dbbase}$ where $k_i$ is the degree of $Q_i$.
\caseheading{Selection}
Assume that $Q = \sigma_\theta(Q_1)$.
In the circuit for $Q$, $|V_{Q,\pxdb}| = |V_{Q_1,\dbbase}|$ vertices, so from the inductive assumption and $\qruntime{Q,\dbbase} = \qruntime{Q_1,\dbbase}$ by definition, we have $|V_{Q,\pxdb}| \leq (k-1) \qruntime{Q,\dbbase} $.
% \AH{Technically, $\kElem$ is the degree of $\poly_1$, but I guess this is a moot point since one can argue that $\kElem$ is also the degree of $\poly$.}
% OK: Correct
\caseheading{Projection}
Assume that $Q = \pi_{\vct A}(Q_1)$.
The circuit for $Q$ has at most $|V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+|{Q_1}|$ vertices.
% \AH{The combination of terms above doesn't follow the details for projection above.}
\begin{align*}
|V_{Q,\pxdb}| & \leq |V_{Q_1,\pxdb}| + |Q_1|\\
%\intertext{By \Cref{prop:queries-need-to-output-tuples} $\qruntime{Q_1,\dbbase} \geq |Q_1|$}
%& \leq |V_{Q_1,\pxdb}| + 2 \qruntime{Q_1,\pxdb}\\
\intertext{(From the inductive assumption)}
& \leq (k-1)\qruntime{Q_1,\dbbase} + \abs{Q_1}\\
\intertext{(By definition of $\qruntime{Q,\dbbase}$)}
& \le (k-1)\qruntime{Q,\dbbase}.
\end{align*}
\caseheading{Union}
Assume that $Q = Q_1 \cup Q_2$.
The circuit for $Q$ has $|V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+|V_{Q_2,\pxdb}|+|{Q_1} \cap {Q_2}|$ vertices.
\begin{align*}
|V_{Q,\pxdb}| & \leq |V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+|V_{Q_2,\pxdb}|+|{Q_1}|+|{Q_2}|\\
%\intertext{By \Cref{prop:queries-need-to-output-tuples} $\qruntime{Q_1,\dbbase} \geq |Q_1|$}
%& \leq |V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+|V_{Q_2,\pxdb}|+\qruntime{Q_1,\pxdb}+\qruntime{Q_2,\dbbase}|\\
\intertext{(From the inductive assumption)}
& \leq (k-1)(\qruntime{Q_1,\dbbase} + \qruntime{Q_2,\dbbase}) + (b_1 + b_2)
\intertext{(By definition of $\qruntime{Q,\dbbase}$)}
& \leq (k-1)(\qruntime{Q,\dbbase}).
\end{align*}
\caseheading{$k$-ary Join}
Assume that $Q = Q_1 \bowtie \ldots \bowtie Q_k$.
The circuit for $Q$ has $|V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+\ldots+|V_{Q_k,\pxdb}|+(k-1)|{Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}|$ vertices.
\begin{align*}
|V_{Q,\pxdb}| & = |V_{Q_1,\pxdb}|+\ldots+|V_{Q_k,\pxdb}|+(k-1)|{Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}|\\
\intertext{From the inductive assumption and noting $\forall i: k_i \leq k-1$}
& \leq (k-1)\qruntime{Q_1,\dbbase}+\ldots+(k-1)\qruntime{Q_k,\dbbase}+\\
&\;\;\; (k-1)|{Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}|\\
& \leq (k-1)(\qruntime{Q_1,\dbbase}+\ldots+\qruntime{Q_k,\dbbase}+\\
&\;\;\;|{Q_1} \bowtie \ldots \bowtie {Q_k}|)\\
\intertext{(By definition of $\qruntime{Q,\dbbase}$)}
& = (k-1)\qruntime{Q,\dbbase}.
\end{align*}
The property holds for all recursive queries, and the proof holds.
\qed
\end{proof}
With \cref{lem:circ-model-runtime} and our upper bound results on \approxq, we now have all the pieces to argue that using our approximation algorithm, the expected multiplicities of an $\raPlus$ query can be computed in essentially the same runtime as deterministic query processing for the same query, proving claim (iv) of the Introduction.
\section{Proof of \Cref{cor:cost-model}}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \Cref{lem:circuits-model-runtime} (\Cref{sec:circuit-runtime}) and \Cref{cor:approx-algo-const-p} (where the latter is used with $\delta$ being substituted\footnote{Recall that \Cref{cor:approx-algo-const-p} is stated for a single output tuple so to get the required guarantee for all (at most $n^k$) output tuples of $Q$ we get at most $\frac \delta{n^k}$ probability of failure for each output tuple and then just a union bound over all output tuples. } with $\frac \delta{n^k}$).
\qed
\end{proof}
\mypar{Higher Moments}
%\label{sec:momemts}
%
We make a simple observation to conclude the presentation of our results.
So far we have only focused on the expectation of $\poly$.
In addition, we could e.g. prove bounds of the probability of a tuple's multiplicity being at least $1$.
Progress can be made on this as follows:
For any positive integer $m$ we can compute the $m$-th moment of the multiplicities, allowing us to e.g. use the Chebyschev inequality or other high moment based probability bounds on the events we might be interested in.
We leave further investigations for future work.
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: "main"
%%% End: