Soundcheck for SQL

  • Hendrik Decker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1990)


The lion’s share of datalog features have been incorporated into the SQL3 standard proposal. However, most SQL manuals still recommend to implement user-defined conditions for data integrity nondeclaratively, by triggers or stored procedures. We describe how to implement known declarative database technology for integrity checking in SQL databases. We show how to represent and evaluate arbitrarily complex constraints in SQL without incurring major disadvantages usually associated to integrity checking in large databases. Error-prone procedural specification and laborious maintenance of integrity constraints is avoided by the declarativity of the specification language. The costs of evaluation is considerably reduced by an automated translation of declarative specifications to SQL triggers.


Integrity Constraint Range Form Deductive Database Integrity Check Relevant Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [CG+]
    M. Celma, C. Garcia, L. Mota, H. Decker: Comparing and Synthesizing Integrity Checking Methods for Deductive Databases. Proc. ICDE’94, IEEE Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [CPM]
    R. Cochrane, H. Pirahesh, N. Mattos: Integrating Triggers and Declarative Constraints in SQL Database Systems. Proc. 22nd VLDB, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [D1]
    H. Decker: Integrity Enforcement on Deductive Databases. Expert Database Systems (ed.: L. Kerschberg). Benjamin Cummings, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [D2]
    H. Decker: The Range Form of Databases and Queries, or: How to Avoid Floundering. Proc. 5. ÖGAI. Springer Informatik-Fachberichte 208, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [D3]
    H. Decker: Drawing Updates from Derivations. Proc. 3rd ICDT. Springer LNCS 470, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [D4]
    H. Decker: Some Notes on Knowledge Assimilation in Deductive Databases. Transactions and Change in Logic Databases (ed.: B. Freitag, H. Decker, M. Kifer, A. Voronkov). Springer LNCS 1472, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [DI]
    R. Demolombe, A. Illarramendi: Heuristics for Syntactial Optimization of Relational Queries. Information Processing Letters, Vol. 32, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. [El]
    C. Elkan: Independence of Logic Database Queries and Updates. Proc. 9th PODS. ACM Press, 1990Google Scholar
  9. [GS+]
    A. Gupta, Y. Sagiv, J. Ullman, J. Widom: Constraint Checking with Partial Information. Proc. 13th PODS. ACM Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [LD]
    M. Leuschel, D. De Schreye: Creating specialised integrity checks through partial evaluation of meta-interpreters. J. Logic Programming, Vol. 36, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. [LO]
    K. Liu, T. Ong: A Modelling Approach for Handling Business Rules and Exceptions. The Computer Journal, Vol. 42, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. [LS]
    A. Levy, Y. Sagiv: Queries Independent of Updates. Proc. 19th VLDB, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. [MP]
    O. Martin, J.F. Perrin: A Generic Business Rule Validation System for ORACLE Applications, 1997, European Oracle User Group Conf., 4.htm.
  14. [Ni]
    J.-M. Nicolas: Logic for Improving Integrity Checking in Relational Databases. Acta Informatica, Vol. 18, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. [SK]
    F. Sadri, R. Kowalski: A Theorem-Proving Approach to Database Integrity. Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (ed.: J. Minker). Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [RSS]
    K. Ross, D. Srivastava, S. Sudarshan: Materialized View Maintenance and Integrity Constraint Checking: Trading Space for Time. Proc. SIGMOD’96. ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. [VT]
    A. Van Gelder, R. Topor: Safety and Translation of Relational Calculus Queries. ACM TODS, Vol. 16, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hendrik Decker
    • 1
  1. 1.MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations