Encyclopedia of Database Systems

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

Query Containment

  • Rada ChirkovaEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1269


One query is contained in another if, independent of the values of the “stored data” (that is, database), the set of answers to the first query on the database is a subset of the set of answers to the second query on the same database. A formal definition of containment is as follows: denote with Q(D) the result of computing query Q over database D. A query Q1 is said to be contained in a query Q2, denoted by Q1Q2, if for all databases D, the set of tuples Q1(D) is a subset of the set of tuples Q2(D), that is, Q1(D) ⊆ Q2(D). This definition of containment, as well as the related definition of query equivalence, can be used to specify query containment and equivalence on databases conforming to both relational and nonrelational data models, including XML and object-oriented databases.

Historical Background

Testing for query containment on finite databases is, in general, co-recursively enumerable: The procedure is going through all possible databases and simultaneously...

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Abiteboul S, Hull R, Vianu V. Foundations of databases. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afrati FN, Li C, Mitra P. Rewriting queries using views in the presence of arithmetic comparisons. Theor Comput Sci. 2006;368(1–2):88–123.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandra AK, Merlin PM. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing; 1977. p. 77–90.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halevy AY. Answering queries using views: a survey. VLDB J. 2001;10(4):270–94,zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jayram TS, Kolaitis PG, Vee E. The containment problem for REAL conjunctive queries with inequalities. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems; 2006. p. 80–89.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanellakis PC. Elements of relational database theory. In: Handbook of theoretical computer science. Volume B: formal models and sematics (B). New York/Cambridge: Elsevier/MIT Press; 1990. p. 1073–156.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kimelfeld B, Sagiv Y. Revisiting redundancy and minimization in an XPath fragment. In: Advances in Database Technology, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Extending Database Technology; 2008. p. 61–72.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klug AC. On conjunctive queries containing inequalities. J ACM. 1988;35(1):146–60.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kolaitis PG, Vardi MY. Conjunctive-query containment and constraint satisfaction. J Comput Syst Sci. 2000;61(2):302–32.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miklau G, Suciu D. Containment and equivalence for a fragment of XPath. J ACM. 2004;51(1):2–45.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saraiya Y. Subtree elimination algorithms in deductive databases. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University; 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Ullman JD. Principles of database and knowledge-base systems, vol. II. Rockville: Computer Science Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ullman JD. The database approach to knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 8th Innovative Applications of AI Conference; 1996. p. 1346–48.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ullman JD. Information integration using logical views. Theor Comput Sci. 2000;239(2):189–210.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA