Modeling Sparse and Evolving Data

  • Shivani BatraEmail author
  • Shelly Sachdeva
  • Aayushi Bansal
  • Suyash Bansal
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11297)


Existing relational database management system (RDBMS) excels in providing transactional support. However, RDBMS performance declines when sparse and evolving data needs to be stored. Modeling of highly evolving and sparse data is a major issue that needs attention to provide faster and competent technology solutions. This research work is focused on providing a solution to handle sparseness and frequent evolution of data with adherence for the transactional support. Recently, authors propose an extension of binary table approach to overcome the lacking aspects. The proposed approach is termed as Multi Table Entity Attribute Value (MTEAV) model. To make users completely unaware about the underlying modeling approach, MTEAV is augmented with a translation layer. It translates conventional SQL query (as per the relational model) to a new SQL query (as per MTEAV structure) to provide the user friendly environment. In this research, authors extend the functionality of the translation layer to provide support for data definition (creating, reading, updating and deleting schema). Authors have experimented MTEAV for analyzing the effect of sparseness on the performance of MTEAV. Results achieved clearly indicate that the MTEAV performance increases with increase in sparseness.


Attribute centric query Entity centric query Data models Frequent evolution Sparseness Storage 


  1. 1.
    Codd, E.F.: Relational database: a practical foundation for productivity. Commun. ACM 25(2), 109–117 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawal, R., Somani, A., Xu, Y.: Storage and querying of e-commerce data. In: VLDB, vol. 1, pp. 149–158, September 2001Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abadi, D.J., Madden, S.R., Hachem, N.: Column-stores vs. row-stores: how different are they really? In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 967–980. ACM, June 2008Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dinu, V., Nadkarni, P.: Guidelines for the effective use of entity–attribute–value modeling for biomedical databases. Int. J. Med. Informatics 76(11), 769–779 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Copeland, G.P., Khoshafian, S.N.: A decomposition storage model. In: ACM SIGMOD Record, vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 268–279. ACM, May 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corwin, J., Silberschatz, A., Miller, P.L., Marenco, L.: Dynamic tables: an architecture for managing evolving, heterogeneous biomedical data in relational database management systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 14(1), 86–93 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batra, S., Sachdeva, S.: Anomaly free search using multi table entity attribute value data model. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 16(4), 363–377 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Batra, S., Sachdeva, S.: Suitability of data models for electronic health records database. In: BDA, pp. 14–32, December 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shivani Batra
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shelly Sachdeva
    • 2
  • Aayushi Bansal
    • 3
  • Suyash Bansal
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringGD Goenka UniversityGurgaonIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringNational Institute of Technology (NIT)DelhiIndia
  3. 3.SDET-1, Quality EngineeringSumo LogicNoidaIndia
  4. 4.Associate Solution AdvisorRisk and Financial AdvisoryHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations