Encyclopedia of Database Systems

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

View Maintenance Aspects

  • Antonios DeligiannakisEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_838


Database systems often define views in order to provide conceptual subsets of the data to different users. Each view may be very complex and require joining information from multiple base relations, or other views. A view can simply be used as a query modification mechanism, where user queries referring to a particular view are appropriately modified based on the definition of the view. However, in applications where fast response times to user queries are essential, views are often materialized by storing their tuples inside the database. This is extremely useful when recomputing the view from the base relations is very expensive. When changes occur to their base relations, materialized views need to be updated, with a process known as view maintenance, in order to provide fresh data to the user.

Historical Background

The use of relational views has long been proposed in relational database systems. The notion of materialized views, or snapshots, was first proposed in [1]....

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Adiba B, Lindsay B. Database snapshots. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Very Data Bases; 1980. p. 86–91.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Colby L, Kawaguchi A, Lieuwen D, Mumick IS, Ross KA. Supporting multiple view maintenance policies. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data; 1997. p. 405–16.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deligiannakis A, Kotidis Y, Roussopoulos N. Processing approximate aggregate queries in wireless sensor networks. Inf Syst. 2006;31(8):770–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gupta A, Mumick IS. Maintenance of materialized views: problems, techniques, and applications. IEEE Data Eng Bull. 18(2):3–19. Special Issue on Materialized Views and Data Warehousing, June 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta A, Mumick IS, Rao J, Ross KA. Adapting materialized views after redefinitions: techniques and a performance study. Inf Syst. 16(5):323–62. Special Issue on Data Warehousing, July 2001.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta A., Mumick IS, Subrahmanian VS. Maintaining views incrementally. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1993. p. 157–66.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jagadish HV, Mumick IS, Silberschatz A. View maintenance issues in the chronicle data model. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems; 1995. p. 113–24.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kotidis Y, Roussopoulos N. DynaMat: a dynamic view management system for data warehouses. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1999. p. 371–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Labrinidis A, Roussopoulos N. WebView materialization. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2000. p. 367–78.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Labrinidis A, Roussopoulos N. Balancing performance and data freshness in web database servers. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2003. p. 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roussopoulos N. The incremental access method of view cache: concept, algorithms, and cost analysis. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1991;16(3):535–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roussopoulos N, Kang H. Principles and techniques in the design of ADMS±. IEEE Comput. 1986;19(2):19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AthensAthensGreece

Section editors and affiliations

  • Yannis Kotidis
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science Dept.Athens Univ. of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece