Encyclopedia of Database Systems

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

Functional Query Language

  • Peter M. D. GrayEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1092


Functional Query Languages came from two lines of development:
  1. 1.

    From new functional programming languages such as FP that showed the value of referential transparency; this ensures that complex nested functional expressions can be evaluated inside-out (bottom-up) or top-down or even split up and done in parallel, with the same result. For optimization purposes this is vastly better than state-altering algorithms used in early CODASYL systems, or even code used today with embedded SQL (as in ODBC).

  2. 2.

    From requirements to provide a single query language and a single integrated schema over multiple autonomous, heterogeneous, distributed databases. This happened in the MULTIBASE project and resulted in the DAPLEX language [1]. It was the first functional query language to compute over instances of a Functional Data Model, for the purpose of abstracting away details of different storage schemas in a distributed DB.


Historical Background

No full implementation of DAPLEX was...

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Shipman DW. The functional data model and the data language DAPLEX. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1981;6(1):140–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kulkarni KG, Atkinson MP. EFDM: extended functional data model. Comput J. 1986;29(1):38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poulovassilis A, King PJH. Extending the functional data model to computational completeness. In: Advances in Database Technology, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Extending Database Technology; 1990. p. 75–91.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bancilhon F, Briggs T, Khoshafian S, Valduriez P. FAD, a powerful and simple database language. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 1987. p. 97–105.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fahl G, Risch T, Sköld M. AMOS – an architecture for active mediators. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems; 1993. p. 47–53.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beech D. A foundation of evolution from relational to object databases. In: Advances in Database Technology, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Extending Database Technology; 1988. p.251–270.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buneman P, Libkin L, Suciu D, Tannen V, Wong L. Comprehension syntax. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 1994;23(1):87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fegaras L, Maier D. Towards an effective calculus for object query languages. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1995. p. 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cattell RGG, editor. The object data standard: ODMG 3.0. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann; 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wong L. Kleisli, a functional query system. J Funct Program. 2000;10(1):19–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gray PMD, Kerschberg L, King PJH, Poulovassilis A. The functional approach to data management. Berlin: Springer; 2004.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Tore Risch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden