2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40683-6_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

FibLSS: A Scalable Label Storage Scheme for Dynamic XML Updates

Abstract: Abstract. Dynamic labeling schemes for XML updates have been the focus of significant research activity in recent years. However the label storage schemes underpinning the dynamic labeling schemes have not received as much attention. Label storage schemes specify how labels are physically encoded and stored on disk. The size of the labels and their logical representation directly influence the computational costs of processing the labels and can limit the functionality provided by the dynamic labeling scheme t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, not only labels should have variable sizes but also the length field of the labels should be stored, and be identified, using a variable length scheme. Thus, we store each label's length using the encoding method called FibLSS [43] along with the label itself, just before it.…”
Section: Proposed Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In other words, not only labels should have variable sizes but also the length field of the labels should be stored, and be identified, using a variable length scheme. Thus, we store each label's length using the encoding method called FibLSS [43] along with the label itself, just before it.…”
Section: Proposed Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that, this is the total storage which is needed in the worst case. However, for the average case, as the number nodes to be encoded using the FibLSS encoding increases exponentially, the growth rate in the number of bits required to encode nodes is linear [43].…”
Section: Label Size Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%