Optimal Deployment of Triggers for Detecting Events

  • Manish Bhide
  • Ajay Gupta
  • Mukul Joshi
  • Mukesh Mohania
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3180)


In active d atabases, rules are represented in the form of ECA (event-condition-action). Database events can be detected by defining triggers on the underlying application databases. Many-a-times, temporal conditions that limit the validity period of the event are as sociated with the ECA rule. The performance of the database can get adversely affected if such temporal constraints are checked (either at the application level or at database level) for every transaction (event) irrespective of whether that transaction (event) has occurred within the said time interval. This drawback can be avoided by optimizing the temporal constraints associated with the sub-events of a composite event based on the semantics of the composite event operators. This paper describes such an algorithm that optimizes the temporal constraints associated with (composite) events and improves the efficiency of the databases by creating and destroying triggers dynamically such that the semantics of the event is unchanged. The efficiency of the technique is validated by our experimental results.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aiken, A., Hellerstein, J.M., Widom, J.: Static Analysis Techniques for Predicting Behavior of Active Database Rules. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 20(1), 3–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adaikkalavan, R., Chakravarthy, S., Snoop, I.B.: Interval-Based Event Specification and Detection for Active Databases. In: Kalinichenko, L.A., Manthey, R., Thalheim, B., Wloka, U. (eds.) ADBIS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2798, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chakravarthy, S., Mishra, D.: Snoop: An Event Specification Language for Active Database. DKE 14(1), 1–26 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chamberlin, D.: A Complete Guide to DB2 Universal DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dayal, U., et al.: The HiPAC project: Combining active databases and timing constraints. SIGMOD Record 17(1), 51–70 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hanson, E.N.: Rule condition testing and action execution in Ariel. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (June 1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Kiernan, J., Maindreville, C.: Implementing high-level active rules on top of relational databases. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Very Large Databases (August 1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehner, W.: Modeling Large Scale OLAP Scenarios. In: Schek, H.-J., Saltor, F., Ramos, I., Alonso, G. (eds.) EDBT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1377, pp. 153–167. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller, J., Sheth, A., Kochut, K.: Perspectives in Modeling: Simulation, Database, and Workflow, Conceptual Modeling, pp. 154–167 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Paton, N.W., Diaz, O.: Active Database Systems. ACM Computing Surveys 31(1), 63–103 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stonebraker, M., Kemnitz, G.: The POSTGRES next-generation database management system. Communications of the ACM 34(10), 78–92 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Transaction Processing Performance Council,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manish Bhide
    • 1
  • Ajay Gupta
    • 1
  • Mukul Joshi
    • 1
  • Mukesh Mohania
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM India Research LaboratoryBlock-1 IIT DelhiHauz Khas, New Delhi

Personalised recommendations