Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.24963/ijcai.2023/377guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesConference Proceedingsacm-pubtype
research-article

Enhancing datalog reasoning with hypertree decompositions

Published: 19 August 2023 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Datalog reasoning based on the seminaïve evaluation strategy evaluates rules using traditional join plans, which often leads to redundancy and inefficiency in practice, especially when the rules are complex. Hypertree decompositions help identify efficient query plans and reduce similar redundancy in query answering. However, it is unclear how this can be applied to materialisation and incremental reasoning with recursive Datalog programs. Moreover, hypertree decompositions require additional data structures and thus introduce nonnegligible overhead in both runtime and memory consumption. In this paper, we provide algorithms that exploit hypertree decompositions for the materialisation and incremental evaluation of Datalog programs. Furthermore, we combine this approach with standard Datalog reasoning algorithms in a modular fashion so that the overhead caused by the decompositions is reduced. Our empirical evaluation shows that, when the program contains complex rules, the combined approach is usually significantly faster than the baseline approach, sometimes by orders of magnitude.

    References

    [1]
    Christopher R Aberger, Susan Tu, Kunle Olukotun, and Christopher Ré. Old techniques for new join algorithms: A case study in rdf processing. In 2016 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW), pages 97-102. IEEE, 2016.
    [2]
    Christopher R Aberger, Andrew Lamb, Susan Tu, Andres Nötzli, Kunle Olukotun, and Christopher Ré. Emptyheaded: A relational engine for graph processing. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 42(4):1-44, 2017.
    [3]
    Serge Abiteboul, Richard Hull, and Victor Vianu. Foundations of databases, volume 8. Addison-Wesley Reading, 1995.
    [4]
    Peter Alvaro, Tyson Condie, Neil Conway, Khaled Elmeleegy, Joseph M Hellerstein, and Russell Sears. Boom analytics: exploring data-centric, declarative programming for the cloud. In Proceedings of the 5th European conference on Computer systems, pages 223-236, 2010.
    [5]
    Molham Aref, Balder ten Cate, Todd J Green, Benny Kimelfeld, Dan Olteanu, Emir Pasalic, Todd L Veldhuizen, and Geoffrey Washburn. Design and implementation of the logicblox system. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 1371-1382, 2015.
    [6]
    Luigi Bellomarini, Georg Gottlob, and Emanuel Sallinger. The vadalog system: Datalog-based reasoning for knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.08709, 2018.
    [7]
    Philip A Bernstein and Dah-Ming W Chiu. Using semi-joins to solve relational queries. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 28(1):25-40, 1981.
    [8]
    Manuel Bichler, Michael Morak, and Stefan Woltran. lpopt: A rule optimization tool for answer set programming. Fundamenta Informaticae, 177(3- 4):275-296, 2020.
    [9]
    Angela Bonifati, Wim Martens, and Thomas Timm. An analytical study of large sparql query logs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00363, 2017.
    [10]
    Andrea Calì, Georg Gottlob, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Andreas Pieris. Datalog+/-: A family of languages for ontology querying. In Datalog Reloaded: First International Workshop, Datalog 2010, Oxford, UK, March 16-19, 2010. Revised Selected Papers, pages 351- 368. Springer, 2011.
    [11]
    Francesco Calimeri, Simona Perri, and Jessica Zangari. Optimizing answer set computation via heuristic-based decomposition. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 19(4):603-628, 2019.
    [12]
    David Carral, Irina Dragoste, Larry González, Ceriel Jacobs, Markus Krötzsch, and Jacopo Urbani. Vlog: A rule engine for knowledge graphs. In International Semantic Web Conference, pages 19-35. Springer, 2019.
    [13]
    Jörg Flum, Markus Frick, and Martin Grohe. Query evaluation via tree-decompositions. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 49(6):716-752, 2002.
    [14]
    Hector Garcia-Molina. Database systems: the complete book. Pearson Education India, 2008.
    [15]
    Georg Gottlob, Nicola Leone, and Francesco Scarcello. Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 64(3):579-627, 2002.
    [16]
    Georg Gottlob, Gianluigi Greco, Nicola Leone, and Francesco Scarcello. Hypertree decompositions: Questions and answers. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 57-74, 2016.
    [17]
    Yuanbo Guo, Zhengxiang Pan, and Jeff Heflin. Lubm: A benchmark for owl knowledge base systems. Journal of Web Semantics, 3(2-3):158-182, 2005.
    [18]
    Ashish Gupta, Inderpal Singh Mumick, and Venkatramanan Siva Subrahmanian. Maintaining views incrementally. ACM SIGMOD Record, 22(2):157- 166, 1993.
    [19]
    Ian Horrocks, Peter F Patel-Schneider, Harold Boley, Said Tabet, Benjamin Grosof, Mike Dean, et al. Swrl: A semantic web rule language combining owl and ruleml. W3C Member submission, 21(79):1-31, 2004.
    [20]
    Pan Hu, Boris Motik, and Ian Horrocks. Optimised maintenance of datalog materialisations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, 2018.
    [21]
    Pan Hu, Boris Motik, and Ian Horrocks. Modular materialisation of datalog programs. Artificial Intelligence, 308:103726, 2022.
    [22]
    Michael Jakl, Reinhard Pichler, and Stefan Woltran. Answer-set programming with bounded treewidth. In IJCAI, volume 9, pages 816-822, 2009.
    [23]
    Bjørnar Luteberget, Christian Johansen, and Martin Steffen. Rule-based consistency checking of railway infrastructure designs. In International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods, pages 491-507. Springer, 2016.
    [24]
    Boris Motik, Peter F Patel-Schneider, Bijan Parsia, Conrad Bock, Achille Fokoue, Peter Haase, Rinke Hoekstra, Ian Horrocks, Alan Ruttenberg, Uli Sattler, et al. Owl 2 web ontology language: Structural specification and functional-style syntax. W3C recommendation, 27(65):159, 2009.
    [25]
    Boris Motik, Yavor Nenov, Robert Piro, and Ian Horrocks. Incremental update of datalog materialisation: the backward/forward algorithm. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 29, 2015.
    [26]
    Boris Motik, Yavor Nenov, Robert Piro, and Ian Horrocks. Maintenance of datalog materialisations revisited. Artificial Intelligence, 269:76-136, 2019.
    [27]
    Yavor Nenov, Robert Piro, Boris Motik, Ian Horrocks, Zhe Wu, and Jay Banerjee. Rdfox: A highly-scalable rdf store. In International Semantic Web Conference, pages 3-20. Springer, 2015.
    [28]
    Hung Q Ngo, Christopher Ré, and Atri Rudra. Skew strikes back: New developments in the theory of join algorithms. ACM SIGMOD Record, 42(4):5- 16, 2014.
    [29]
    Yeonsu Park, Seongyun Ko, Sourav S Bhowmick, Kyoungmin Kim, Kijae Hong, and Wook-Shin Han. G-care: A framework for performance benchmarking of cardinality estimation techniques for subgraph matching. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 1099- 1114, 2020.
    [30]
    Francesco Scarcello, Gianluigi Greco, and Nicola Leone. Weighted hypertree decompositions and optimal query plans. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 73(3):475-506, 2007.
    [31]
    Martin Staudt and Matthias Jarke. Incremental maintenance of externally materialized views. Citeseer, 1995.
    [32]
    Giorgio Stefanoni, Boris Motik, and Egor V Kostylev. Estimating the cardinality of conjunctive queries over rdf data using graph summarisation. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, pages 1043-1052, 2018.
    [33]
    Julien Subercaze, Christophe Gravier, Jules Chevalier, and Frederique Laforest. Inferray: fast in-memory rdf inference. In VLDB, volume 9, 2016.
    [34]
    Fabian M Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, and Gerhard Weikum. Yago: A large ontology from wikipedia and wordnet. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(3):203-217, 2008.
    [35]
    Susan Tu and Christopher Ré. Duncecap: Query plans using generalized hypertree decompositions. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 2077-2078, 2015.
    [36]
    Przemyslaw Andrzej Walega, B Cuenca Grau, Mark Kaminski, and Egor V Kostylev. Datalogmtl: Computational complexity and expressive power. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1886-92. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2019.
    [37]
    Zhe Wu, George Eadon, Souripriya Das, Eugene Inseok Chong, Vladimir Kolovski, Melliyal Annamalai, and Jagannathan Srinivasan. Implementing an inference engine for rdfs/owl constructs and user-defined rules in oracle. In 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 1239-1248. IEEE, 2008.
    [38]
    Mihalis Yannakakis. Algorithms for acyclic database schemes. In VLDB, volume 81, pages 82-94, 1981.
    [39]
    Xinyue Zhang, Pan Hu, Yavor Nenov, and Ian Horrocks. Enhancing datalog reasoning with hypertree decompositions. CoRR, abs/2305.06854, 2023.
    [40]
    Yujiao Zhou, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Zhe Wu, and Jay Banerjee. Making the most of your triple store: query answering in owl 2 using an rl reasoner. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, pages 1569-1580, 2013.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Guide Proceedings
    IJCAI '23: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
    August 2023
    7242 pages
    ISBN:978-1-956792-03-4

    Sponsors

    • International Joint Conferences on Artifical Intelligence (IJCAI)

    Publisher

    Unknown publishers

    Publication History

    Published: 19 August 2023

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 0
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media