The POSTGRES rule manager

Hanson, Eric N.; Potamianos, Spyros

doi:10.1109/32.42733

Cited by 118 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [SHP88,Han89] the authors require an absolute priority level for each rule. Starburst [WCL91] permits explicitly specified relative priorities, but uses default priorities (derived by application of a heuristic criterion) where no explicit priorities have been specified.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Conflicts between Rules

Jagadish

Mendelzon

Mumick³

1999

Journal of Computer and System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rules are used as a programming paradigm in several application domains, including active databases, planning, expert systems, and billing. For example, active databases have rules that execute upon the occurrence of particular events if specified condition predicates are satisfied. It is often the case that multiple rules are fireable when a particular event occurs. We propose a declarative mechanism to control the interaction and execution of multiple rules. The mechanism is based upon logical meta-rules that can express various types of relationships between rules. The meta-rules allow us to reason statically about the rule behavior. We can determine, in polynomial time, whether a rule will never execute, whether two rules can ever be executed together, and whether a rule system is guaranteed to have a unique execution set for all possible rules that become fireable.In this paper, we illustrate our techniques using rules in an active database. A system based upon the meta-rules and the static analysis presented here has been found to be of value in a billing application at ATH T to control interactions between discount plans. ]

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Conflicts between Rules

Jagadish

Mendelzon

Mumick³

1999

Journal of Computer and System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In existing systems, control structure for multiple rules triggered by a single event is specified using rule priorities [32,17,1,6]. In a priority-based approach, when a set of rules is triggered by an event, rules in that set have to follow the same control structure (which is derived from rule priorities) during their execution, independent of the event that triggered them.…”

Section: A Flexible and Expressive Rule Control Mechanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In those existing active DBMSs in which fixed priorities are assigned to ECA rules (e.g. POSTGRES [32], HiPAC [11], Ariel [17], Alert [1] and Starburst [35]), different control structures for a single set of rules cannot be accommodated. Furthermore, ECA rules with fixed priorities (e.g., numeric priorities) cannot always accommodate a new rule with the desired priority.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Graph-based rules and transactions for parallel and active database systems

Jawadi¹,

1996

Journal of Systems Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Active database management systems are becoming increasingly popular because of their relevance to several advanced and complex database applications. The need for user-defined execution orders (or control structures) for rules is well recognized by researchers of active database management systems. Priority-based approaches (e.g., numeric priorities) have been used to specify a desired control structure among rules. However, due to the fact that fixed priorities are assigned to rules, independent of different contexts in which they may be triggered, the existing approaches are not able to allow rules to be executed following different control structures when they are triggered by different events. More flexible and expressive control mechanisms are often needed for rules in advanced database applications such as CAD/CAM, CASE, CIM and flexible manufacturing systems, Since rules in database environments are executed in a transaction framework, an expressive transaction model is needed to model complex control structures among rules uniformly. In this work, we separate the event part from the condition-action parts of a rule and associate it with a rule graph which represents a set of rules (actually a set of condition-action pairs) sharing the same control structure. Different rule graphs can be defined under different event specifications thereby enabling a set of rules to follow different control structures when triggered by different events. We also use an expressive graph-based transaction model to incorporate the control Structures of rule graphs uniformly in a transaction framework. The proposed rule and transaction modeling and execution techniques hav~ been implemented and verified on a shared-nothing multiprocessor computer nCUBE2. In this paper, we also describe the client-server architecture and different parallel transaction and rule execution techniques that have been used for the implementation. Finally, we analyze the speedup and scaleup of the implemented system.

show abstract

“…" do not address the need for efficient data structures for finding which rules match a particular tuple (RPL [6], Starburst rule system [27]), " do not provide a data structure for testing selection conditions, or " provide a data structure for testing selection conditions which cannot efficiently handle conditions placed on an arbitrary attribute (e.g., one without an index) (POSTGRES rule system [23,22,2.A]. IIiPAC [5], DIPS [20], Alert [19]).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ariel Database Rule System Project

Hanson¹

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The POSTGRES rule manager

Cited by 118 publications

References 17 publications

Managing Conflicts between Rules

Managing Conflicts between Rules

Graph-based rules and transactions for parallel and active database systems

Ariel Database Rule System Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About