Adaptive XML Shredding: Architecture, Implementation, and Challenges

  • Juliana Freire
  • Jérôme Siméon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2590)


As XML data becomes central to business-critical applications, there is a growing need for efficient and reliable XML storage. Two main approaches have been proposed for storing XML data: native and colonial systems. Native systems (e.g., [19], [20]) are designed from the ground up specifically for XML and XML query languages. Colonial systems (e.g., [5],[7], [19]), on the other hand, attempt to reuse existing commercial database systems (DBMS) by mapping XML into the underlying model used by the DBMS. Colonial systems can thus leverage features, such as concurrency control, crash recovery, scalability, and highly optimized query processors available in the DMBS, making them an attractive alternative for managing XML data. However, several technical challenges need to be addressed in terms of architecture, algorithms, and implementation of these systems.In this paper, we described how these issues are addressed in the context of colonial systems that use relational databases as the underlying DBMS.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    S. Agrawal, S. Chaudhuri, and V.R. Narasayya. Automated selection of materialized views and indexes in SQL databases. In Proc. of VLDB, 2000. 115Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Agrawal, S. Chaudhuri, and V.R. Narasayya. Materialized view and index selection tool for microsoft sql server 2000. In Proc. of SIGMOD, 2001. 115Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Boag, D.Chamberlin, M. Fernandez, D. Florescu, J. Robie, J. Siméon, and M. Stefanescu. XQuery 1.0: An XML query language. W3C Working Draft, June 2001. 106Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Bohannon, J. Freire, J. Haritsa, M. Ramanath, P. Roy, and J. Siméon. Legodb: Customizing relational storage for xml documents. In Proc. of VLDB, 2002. 104, 115Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Bohannon, J. Freire, P. Roy, and J. Siméon. From XML schema to relations: A cost-based approach to XML storage. In Proc. of ICDE, 2002. 104, 108, 109, 113, 115Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. J. Carey, J. Kiernan, J. Shanmugasundaram, E. J. Shekita, and S. N. Subramanian. XPERANTO: Middleware for publishing object-relational data as xml documents. In Proc. of VLDB, 2000. 104, 110Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Deutsch, M. Fernandez, and D. Suciu. Storing semi-structured data with STORED. In Proc. of SIGMOD, 1999. 104Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. Draper, P. Fankhauser, M. Fernandez, A. Malhotra, K. Rose, M. Rys, J. Siméon, and P. Wadler. The XQuery 1.0 formal semantics, March 2002. W3C Working Draft. 109Google Scholar
  9. [10]
    M. Fernandez, W.C. Tan, and D. Suciu. Silkroute: trading between relations and XML. Computer Networks, 33(1-6):723–745, 2000. 104, 106, 108, 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [11]
    D. Florescu and D. Kossmann. A performance evaluation of alternative mapping schemes for storing XML in a relational database. Technical Report 3680, INRIA, 1999. 104Google Scholar
  11. [12]
    J. Freire, J. Haritsa, M. Ramanath, P. Roy, and J. Siméon. Statix: Making XML count. In Proc. of SIGMOD, 2002. 111Google Scholar
  12. [13]
    G. Graefe and W. J. McKenna. The volcano optimizer generator: Extensibility and efficient search. In Proc. of ICDE, 1993. 115Google Scholar
  13. [16]
    G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and C. Connell. Accurate estimation of the number of tuples satisfying a condition. In Proc. of SIGMOD, 1984. 112Google Scholar
  14. [17]
    Raghu Ramakrishnan and Johannes Gehrke. Database Management Systems. McGraw-Hill, 2000. 112Google Scholar
  15. [18]
    P. Roy, S. Seshadri, S. Sudarshan, and S. Bhobe. Efficient and extensible algorithms for multi query optimization. In Proc. of SIGMOD, 2000. 111, 115Google Scholar
  16. [19]
    J. Shanmugasundaram, K. Tufte, G. He, C. Zhang, D. DeWitt, and J. Naughton. Relational databases for querying XML documents: Limitations and opportunities. In Proc. of VLDB, 1999. 104, 106, 113Google Scholar
  17. [20]
  18. [21]
    G. Valentin, M. Zuliani, D.C. Zilio, G.M. Lohman, and A. Skelley. Db2 advisor: An optimizer smart enough to recommend its own indexes. In Proc. of ICDE, 2000. 115Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliana Freire
    • 1
  • Jérôme Siméon
    • 1
  1. 1.Bell LaboratoriesNJUSA

Personalised recommendations