Scribd
Upload
3K views

Distributed Database Derived Horizontal Fragmentation

Distributed Database Management Systems Derived Horizontal Fragmentation(DHF) 2 ‡ Defined on a member relation of a link according to a selection operation specified on its owner 3 ‡ Two important points: ± Each link is an equi-join. ± Equijoin can be implemented by means of semi-joins 4 ‡ So we are interested in defining the partitions of member based on fragmentation of its owner, but want to see attributes only from member, so 5 Ri = R Si, 1 i w where w is the maximum number o

Uploaded by

Muhammad Furqan Arshad
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views

Distributed Database Derived Horizontal Fragmentation

Distributed Database Management Systems Derived Horizontal Fragmentation(DHF) 2 ‡ Defined on a member relation of a link according to a selection operation specified on its owner 3 ‡ Two important points: ± Each link is an equi-join. ± Equijoin can be implemented by means of semi-joins 4 ‡ So we are interested in defining the partitions of member based on fragmentation of its owner, but want to see attributes only from member, so 5 Ri = R Si, 1 i w where w is the maximum number o

Uploaded by

Muhammad Furqan Arshad
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 26

Distributed Database Management Systems

Derived Horizontal Fragmentation(DHF)

Defined on a member relation of a link according to a selection operation specified on its owner

Two important points:


Each link is an equi-join. Equijoin can be implemented by means of semi-joins

So we are interested in defining the partitions of member based on fragmentation of its owner, but want to see attributes only from member, so

Ri = R Si, 1 i w
where w is the maximum number of fragments that will be defined on R and Si = Fi (S), where Fi is formula for PHF on S

DHF Example

PAY

title, sal
L1

EMP

eNo, Name, titke

jNo, jName, budget, loc

PROJ

ASIGN

eNo, jNo, resp, dur

Considering the link L1 above: owner (L1) = PAY member (L1) = EMP We want to group employees on the basis of their salaries one with salary less than or equal to 30,000/and other more than that

eNo E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7

eName T Khan W Shah R Dar K Butt F Sahbai A Haq S Farhana

title Elec Eng Sys Ana Mech Eng Programme Sys Ana Elec Eng Mech Eng

E8

M Daud

Sys Ana

10

Title Elect. Eng Sys Analyst Mech. Eng Programmer

Sal 40000 34000 27000 24000

11

eNo
E1 E2 E5 E6 E8

eName
T Khan W Shah F Sahbai A Haq M Daud

title
Elec Eng Sys Ana Sys Ana Elec Eng Sys Ana

E3 E4

R Dar K Butt

Mech Eng Programme

E7

S Farhana

Mech Eng

PAY1 = sal 30000 (PAY) PAY2 = sal > 30000 (PAY) EMP1 = EMP PAY1 EMP2 = EMP PAY2

DHF
The inputs required for DHF
The set of partitions for owner Member relation Semi-join predicates between owner and member

14

Care in case of multiple owners, like ASIGN Fragmentation selection depends:


1- One with better Join Characteristics 2- One used in more applications

DHA

Second one is straight forward, we should try to facilitate heavy users; the first one needs more considerations

15

DHF
For the first point;
Join is performed on smaller relations, that increases efficiency The join can be performed in parallel in case of simple graphs, that improves efficiency as well; simple graph means
PAY1 PAY2

EMP1

EMP2

16

demonstrates two things

DHF

Checking for Correctness

1-Derived fragmentation may follow a chain, like PAY-EMP-ASIGN 2-Typically, more than one fragmentation options are there, which one adopted is an allocation problem discussed later

Completeness: for PHF depends on Pr, and in DHF, completeness of owner Pr, and the referential integrity constraint Reconstruction: Involves Union in both cases Disjointness: Simple in PHF if the pi in Pr are mutually exclusive; in DHF, guaranteed in case of simple join graph, however in case of partitioned join graph it is hard to establish
17

Checking for Correctness

Completeness: for PHF depends on Pr, and in DHF, completeness of owner Pr, and the referential integrity constraint Let R be member S be owner Fs = { S1,S2,Sn} A the common attribute t[A] = t [A]
18

Reconstruction:
Involves Union in both cases FR = {R1,R2,.Rn} R = U Ri Ri FR

19

Disjoint ness:
Simple in PHF if the pi in Pr are mutually exclusive; in DHF, guaranteed in case of simple join graph, however in case of partitioned join graph it is hard to establish

20

Vertical Fragmentation (VF)


Vertical subset of relation A VF of a relation produces fragments R1, R2, . Rn, each of which contains subset of attributes of R and PK of R. Objective is to produce smaller relations, so that most of the applications run on smaller relations; so they become fast.
21

Vertical Fragment
Vertical fragmentation is more complicated, since more alternatives exist. VF is mainly based on heuristics

22

Example of VF
CUST
A/C# Na me AB10 Sae 1 ed AB20 Lae 2 eq AB20 Sal 3 ma AB10 Sha 9 an Bal Bran ch MTN

4535

Delta = A/C#, Name, Branch (CUST) Beta = A/C#, Bal (CUST)

Delta
A/C# Na me AB10 Sae 1 ed AB20 Lae 2 eq Bran ch MTN LHR

45632 LHR .34 67839 LHR .87 45.32 MTN

23

Two Alternatives of VF
Grouping: Starting with single attribute VFs and then combining different attributes

24

Two Alternatives of VF
Splitting: Starting from the whole relation and then breaking it down analyzing the nature of applications Later suits better to DDB environment; results non-overlapping fragments; so discussed here

25

Thanks

You might also like