Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

XQuery Processors

  • Torsten Grust
  • H. V. Jagadish
  • Fatma Özcan
  • Cong Yu
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_800

Synonyms

XML database system; XQuery compiler; XQuery interpreter

Definition

XQuery processors are systems for efficient storage and retrieval of XML data using XML queries written in the XQuery language. A typical XQuery processor includes the data model, which dictates the storage component; the query model, which defines how queries are processed; and the optimization modules, which leverage various algorithmic and indexing techniques to improve the performance of query processing.

Historical Background

The first W3C working draft of XQuery was published in early 2001 by a group of industrial experts. It is heavily influenced by several earlier XML query languages including Lorel, Quilt, XML-QL, and XQL. XQuery is a strongly-typed functional language, whose basic principals include simplicity, compositionality, closure, schema conformance, XPath compatibility, generality and completeness. Its type system is based on XML schema, and it contains XPath language as a subset. Over the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Al-Khalifa S, Jagadish HV, Patel JM, Wu Y, Koudas N, Srivastava D. Structural joins: a primitive for efficient XML query pattern matching. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Data Engineering; 2002. p. 141–52.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Khalifa S, Yu C, Jagadish HV. Querying structured text in an XML database. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Internatioal Conference on Management of Data; 2003. p. 4–15.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balmin A, Özcan F, Beyer KS, Cochrane RJ, Pirahesh H. A framework for using materialized XPath views in XML query processing. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2004. p. 6071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balmin A et al. Integration cost-based optimization in DB2 XML. IBM Syst J. 2006;45(2):299–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyer KS, Özcan F, et al. System RX: one part relational, one part XML. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Internatioanl Conference on Management of Data; 2005. p. 347–58.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyer KS, Siaprasad S, van der Linden B. DB2/XML: designing for evolution. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2005. p. 948–52.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boncz PA, Grust T, van Keulen M, Manegold S, Rittinger J, Teubner J. MonetDB/XQuery: a fast XQuery processor powered by a relational engine. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2006. p. 479–90.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grust T. Accelerating XPath location steps. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2002. p. 109–220.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grust T, Mayr M, Rittinger J, Sakr S, Teubner J. A SQL: 1999 code generator for the pathfinder XQuery compiler. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2007. p. 1162–64.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grust T, Sakr S, Teubner J. XQuery on SQL hosts. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2004. p. 252–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jagadish HV, Al-Khalifa S, Chapman A, Lakshmanan LVS, Nierman A, Paparizos S, Patel J, Srivastava D, Wiwatwattana N, Wu Y, Yu C. TIMBER: a native XML database. VLDB J. 2002;11:274–91.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jagadish HV, Lakshmanan LVS, Srivastava D, Thompson K. TAX: a tree algebra for XML. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Database Programming Languages; 2001. p. 149–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Josifovski V, Fontoura M, Barta A. Querying XML streams. VLDB J. 2005;14(2):197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nierman A, Jagadish HV. ProTDB: probabilistic data in XML. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2002. p. 646–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Neil P, O’Neil E, Pal S, Cseri I, Schaller G, Westburg N. ORDPATHs: insert-friendly XML node labels. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2004. p. 903–08.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Özcan F, Chamberlin D, Kulkarni KG, Michels J-E. Integration of SQL and XQuery in IBM DB2. IBM Syst J. 2006;45(2):245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paparizos S, Jagadish HV. Pattern tree algebras: sets or sequences? In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2005. p. 349–60.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paparizos S, Wu Y, Lakshmanan LVS, Jagadish HV. Tree logical classes for efficient evaluation of XQuery. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2004. p. 71–82.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu Y, Patel JM, Jagadish HV. Estimating answer sizes for XML queries. In: Advances in Database Technology, Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Extending Database Technology; 2002. p. 590–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu Y, Patel JM, Jagadish HV. Structural join order selection for XML query optimization. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Data Engineering; 2003. p. 443–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torsten Grust
    • 1
  • H. V. Jagadish
    • 2
  • Fatma Özcan
    • 3
  • Cong Yu
    • 4
  1. 1.University of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.IBM Research – AlmadenSan JoseUSA
  4. 4.Google ResearchNew YorkUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sihem Amer-Yahia
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d'Informatique de GrenobleCNRS and LIGGrenobleFrance