2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcs.2015.02.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the complexity of sampling query feedback restricted database repair of functional dependency violations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many sampling methods are first proposed to process static data, like those stored in database systems [27]. Conventional methods include random sampling, weight sampling [28], stratified sampling [29], etc.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many sampling methods are first proposed to process static data, like those stored in database systems [27]. Conventional methods include random sampling, weight sampling [28], stratified sampling [29], etc.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The algorithm has been used to generate CFDs automatically. Miao et al 12 systematically studied the problem of data consistency determination using CFD and measured the consistency quality of data sets. The ratio of the tuples in the most substantial subset of the rule set that satisfies CFD to the tuple number of the data set.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Technically, to the best of our knowledge, there is no existing work considering this aspect. There are some detection techniques [18][19][20]27] but they are not able to reveal how dirty the data is directly. For confidence computation [28], our problem generalizes the confidence of a single CFD; actually, this measurement is also the confidence of a set of CFDs.…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the data edit operations (including tuple-level and cell-level), minimum cost repair will output repaired data with minimizing the difference between it and the original one. Our problem can be seen as a special case of [29], because the complementary minimum culprit can be seen as C-repair (cardinality repair) of an inconsistent database; however, it is much more expensive using the techniques of the authors of [27] directly, especially for dynamic data, and the algorithm given in this paper is more efficient and seems optimal. There are some other repair definitions, such as “minimum description length (MDL)” [23] and “relative trust” [21].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%