Encyclopedia of Big Data Technologies

2019 Edition
| Editors: Sherif Sakr, Albert Y. Zomaya

Continuous Queries

  • Martin HirzelEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77525-8_305



A continuous query in an SQL-like language is a declarative query on data streams expressed in a query language for streams derived from the SQL for databases.


Just like data that is stored in a relational database can be queried with SQL, data that travels in a stream can be queried with an SQL-like query language. For databases, the relational model and its language, SQL, have been successful because the relational model is a foundation for clean and rigorous mathematical semantics and because SQL is declarative, specifying what the desired result is without specifying how to compute it (Garcia-Molina et al. 2008). However, the classic relational model assumes that data resides in relations in a database. When data travels in a stream, such as for communications, sensors, automated trading, etc., there is a need for continuous queries. SQL dialects for continuous queries fill this...

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


  1. Abadi DJ, Carney D, Cetintemel U, Cherniack M, Convey C, Lee S, Stonebraker M, Tatbul N, Zdonik S (2003) Aurora: a new model and architecture for data stream management. J Very Large Data Bases (VLDB J) 12(2):120–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali M, Chandramouli B, Goldstein J, Schindlauer R (2011) The extensibility framework in Microsoft StreamInsight. In: International conference on data engineering (ICDE), pp 1242–1253Google Scholar
  3. Arasu A, Widom J (2004) A denotational semantics for continuous queries over streams and relations. SIGMOD Rec 33(3):6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arasu A, Cherniack M, Galvez E, Maier D, Maskey AS, Ryvkina E, Stonebraker M, Tibbetts R (2004) Linear road: a stream data management benchmark. In: Conference on very large data bases (VLDB), pp 480–491Google Scholar
  5. Arasu A, Babu S, Widom J (2006) The CQL continuous query language: semantic foundations and query execution. J Very Large Data Bases (VLDB J) 15(2): 121–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barga RS, Goldstein J, Ali M, Hong M (2007) Consistent streaming through time: a vision for event stream processing. In: Conference on innovative data systems research (CIDR), pp 363–373Google Scholar
  7. Botan I, Derakhshan R, Dindar N, Haas L, Miller RJ, Tatbul N (2010) SECRET: a model for analysis of the execution semantics of stream processing systems. In: Conference on very large data bases (VLDB), pp 232–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandrasekaran S, Cooper O, Deshpande A, Franklin MJ, Hellerstein JM, Hong W, Krishnamurthy S, Madden S, Raman V, Reiss F, Shah MA (2003) TelegraphCQ: continuous dataflow processing for an uncertain world. In: Conference on innovative data systems research (CIDR)Google Scholar
  9. Cranor C, Johnson T, Spataschek O, Shkapenyuk V (2003) Gigascope: a stream database for network applications. In: International conference on management of data (SIGMOD) industrial track, pp 647–651Google Scholar
  10. Garcia-Molina H, Ullman JD, Widom J (2008) Database systems: the complete book, 2nd edn. Pearson/Prentice Hall, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Gedik B (2013) Generic windowing support for extensible stream processing systems. Softw Pract Exp (SP&E) 44:1105–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grover M, Rea R, Spicer M (2016) Walmart & IBM revisit the linear road benchmark. https://www.slideshare. net/RedisLabs/walmart-ibm-revisit-the-linear-road-ben chmark (Retrieved Feb 2018)
  13. Hirzel M, Rabbah R, Suter P, Tardieu O, Vaziri M (2016) Spreadsheets for stream processing with unbounded windows and partitions. In: Conference on distributed event-based systems (DEBS), pp 49–60Google Scholar
  14. Hudak P (1998) Modular domain specific languages and tools. In: International conference on software reuse (ICSR), pp 134–142Google Scholar
  15. Jain N, Amini L, Andrade H, King R, Park Y, Selo P, Venkatramani C (2006) Design, implementation, and evaluation of the linear road benchmark on the stream processing core. In: International conference on management of data (SIGMOD), pp 431–442Google Scholar
  16. Jain N, Mishra S, Srinivasan A, Gehrke J, Widom J, Balakrishnan H, Cetintemel U, Cherniack M, Tibbets R, Zdonik S (2008) Towards a streaming SQL standard. In: Conference on very large data bases (VLDB), pp 1379–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Soulé R, Hirzel M, Gedik B, Grimm R (2016) River: an intermediate language for stream processing. Softw Pract Exp (SP&E) 46(7):891–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tangwongsan K, Hirzel M, Schneider S (2017) Low-latency sliding-window aggregation in worst-case constant time. In: Conference on distributed event-based systems (DEBS), pp 66–77Google Scholar
  19. Xu Z, Hirzel M, Rothermel G, Wu KL (2013) Testing properties of dataflow program operators. In: Conference on automated software engineering (ASE), pp 103–113Google Scholar
  20. Zou Q, Wang H, Soulé R, Hirzel M, Andrade H, Gedik B, Wu KL (2010) From a stream of relational queries to distributed stream processing. In: Conference on very large data bases (VLDB) industrial track, pp 1394–1405Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IBM Research AIYorktown HeightsUSA