![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Return to XML II , Amer-Yahia, Cho, Lakshmanan and Srivastava presented an O(n4) algorithm for minimizing TPQs in the absence of integrity constraints (Case 1); n is the number of nodes in the query. Then they considered the problem of minimizing TPQs in the presence of three kinds of integrity constraints: required-child, required-descendant and subtype (Case 2). They presented an O(n6) algorithm for minimizing TPQs in the presence of only required-child and required-descendant constraints (i.e., no subtypes allowed; Case 3). We present O(n2), O(n4) and O(n2) algorithms for minimizing TPQs in these three cases, respectively, based on the concept of graph simulation. We believe that our O(n2) algorithms for Cases 1 and 3 are runtime optimal. ![]() DiSC'03 © 2003 Association for Computing Machinery |