On the distance of databases

In the present paper a distance concept of databases is investigated. Two database instances are of distance 0, if they have the same number of attributes and satisfy exactly the same set of functional dependencies. This naturally leads to the poset of closures as a model of changing database. The distance of two databases (closures) is defined to be the distance of the two closures in the Hasse diagram of that poset. We determine the diameter of the poset and show that the distance of two closures is equal to the natural lower bound, that is to the size of the symmetric difference of the collections of closed sets. We also investigate the diameter of the set of databases with a given system of keys. Sharp upper bounds are given in the case when the minimal keys are 2 (or r)-element sets. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

On the Distance of Databases

We study the novel problem of efficiently computing the update distance for a pair of relational databases. In analogy to the edit distance of strings, we define the update distance of two databases as the minimal number of set-oriented insert, delete and modification operations necessary to transform one database into the other. We show how this distance can be computed by traversing a search space of database instances connected by update operations. This insight leads to a family of algorithms that compute the update distance or approximations of it. In our experiments we observed that a simple heuristic performs surprisingly well in most considered cases. Our motivation for studying distance measures for databases stems from the field of scientific databases. There, replicas of a single database are often maintained at different sites, which typically leads to (accidental or planned) divergence of their content. To re-create a consistent view, these differences must be resolved. Such an effort requires an understanding of the process that produced them. We found that minimal update sequences are a proper representation of systematic errors, thus giving valuable clues to domain experts responsible for conflict resolution