Advertisement

Teaching Physical Database Design

  • Karen C. Davis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11158)

Abstract

Database design is traditionally taught as a process where requirements are captured in a conceptual model, then forward engineered into a logical model, followed by implementation in a physical model. Conceptual models are intended to be abstract and platform-independent, thus expressing aspects of the application being modeled without narrowing the design choices prematurely. The early stages of the process are more established in pedagogy, while the last stage, physical design, seems largely unexplored in the computing education literature. Moreover, if the choice for the logical model is relational, there are several possible implementation models; the design space widens again after the phase of transforming a conceptual model into a logical model. This paper explores teaching students about the design space for physical modeling. The contents of learning modules on physical design are presented, including scaffolding of technical content in an abstract (conceptual) manner, followed by connection to real-world analogues, culminating in a project that requires application of conceptual knowledge to explore the impact of physical design alternatives. The achievement of learning outcomes with and without the final project is assessed for courses taught in two consecutive academic terms. Future areas of research are discussed, such as expanding and refining the physical design space, the student preparation, and the types of impact investigated.

Keywords

Teaching database design Physical design Index selection Cost models 

References

  1. ACM/IEEE Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula: Computer science curricula 2013: curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in computer science. Technical report, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  2. Envisioning the Data Science Discipline: The Undergraduate Perspective: Interim Report, The National Academies of Science/Engineering/Medicine (2017)Google Scholar
  3. Realizing the Potential of Data Science, Final Report from the National Science Foundation Computer and Information Science and Engineering Advisor Committee Data Science Working Group, co-chairs: Francine Berman and Rob Rutenbar, December 2016Google Scholar
  4. Connolly, T.M., Begg, C.E.: Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation, and Management, 5th edn. Pearson Education, New York (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, K.C.: Teaching conceptual design capture. In: Parsons, J., Chiu, D. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8697, pp. 247–256. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14139-8_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.B.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 7th edn. Pearson Education, New York (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Freeman, S., et al.: Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(23), 8410–8415 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garcia, S.: Improving classroom preparedness using guided practice. In: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 326–331. ACM, February 2018Google Scholar
  9. Garcia-Molina, H., Ullman, J.D., Widom, J.: Database System Implementation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar
  10. Ramakrishnan, R., Gehrke, J.: Database Management Systems, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, Boston (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Sciore, E.: SimpleDB: a simple Java-based multiuser system for teaching database internals. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 561–565. ACM, March 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Silberschatz, A., Korth, H.F., Sudarshan, S.: Database System Concepts, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Sotomayor, B., Shaw, A.: chidb: building a simple relational database system from scratch. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, pp. 407–412. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  14. Talbert, R.: Flipped Learning: A Guide for Higher Education Faculty. Stylus Publishing, Sterling (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Software Engineering DepartmentMiami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations