2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-29038-1_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discovery of Keys from SQL Tables

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, there are cases where the number of rows in a minimum-sized Armstrong table is exponential in the size of the given constraints, but there are also cases where the number of rows in an Armstrong table is logarithmic in the size of the optimal cover of a given constraint set. The results of this chapter were announced in [56], and similar results have been obtained for the sole class of uniqueness constraints over SQL tables with null-free subschemata [83,84].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Finally, there are cases where the number of rows in a minimum-sized Armstrong table is exponential in the size of the given constraints, but there are also cases where the number of rows in an Armstrong table is logarithmic in the size of the optimal cover of a given constraint set. The results of this chapter were announced in [56], and similar results have been obtained for the sole class of uniqueness constraints over SQL tables with null-free subschemata [83,84].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Finally, Armstrong tables were also investigated for the sole class of uniqueness constraints over SQL tables with null-free subschemata [83,84]. Here, the role of maximal and duplicate sets is replaced by the notion of an anti-key.…”
Section: Further Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%