Document Open Access Logo

Counting Triangles under Updates in Worst-Case Optimal Time

Authors Ahmet Kara, Hung Q. Ngo, Milos Nikolic, Dan Olteanu, Haozhe Zhang



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ICDT.2019.4.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.64 MB
  • 18 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Ahmet Kara
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Hung Q. Ngo
  • RelationalAI, Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA
Milos Nikolic
  • School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Dan Olteanu
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Haozhe Zhang
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Acknowledgements

Olteanu would like to thank Nicole Schweikardt for the connection between the Online Matrix-Vector Multiplication conjecture and the triangle query.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Ahmet Kara, Hung Q. Ngo, Milos Nikolic, Dan Olteanu, and Haozhe Zhang. Counting Triangles under Updates in Worst-Case Optimal Time. In 22nd International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2019). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 127, pp. 4:1-4:18, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2019.4

Abstract

We consider the problem of incrementally maintaining the triangle count query under single-tuple updates to the input relations. We introduce an approach that exhibits a space-time tradeoff such that the space-time product is quadratic in the size of the input database and the update time can be as low as the square root of this size. This lowest update time is worst-case optimal conditioned on the Online Matrix-Vector Multiplication conjecture. The classical and factorized incremental view maintenance approaches are recovered as special cases of our approach within the space-time tradeoff. In particular, they require linear-time maintenance under updates, which is suboptimal. Our approach can also count all triangles in a static database in the worst-case optimal time needed for enumerating them.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Database query processing and optimization (theory)
  • Information systems → Database views
  • Information systems → Data streams
Keywords
  • incremental view maintenance
  • amortized analysis
  • data skew

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Mahmoud Abo Khamis, Hung Q. Ngo, and Atri Rudra. FAQ: Questions Asked Frequently. In PODS, pages 13-28, 2016. Google Scholar
  2. N. Alon, R. Yuster, and U. Zwick. Finding and Counting Given Length Cycles. Algorithmica, 17(3):209-223, 1997. Google Scholar
  3. Ziv Bar-Yossef, Ravi Kumar, and D Sivakumar. Reductions in Streaming Algorithms, with an Application to Counting Triangles in Graphs. In SODA, pages 623-632, 2002. Google Scholar
  4. Christoph Berkholz, Jens Keppeler, and Nicole Schweikardt. Answering Conjunctive Queries Under Updates. In PODS, pages 303-318, 2017. Google Scholar
  5. Christoph Berkholz, Jens Keppeler, and Nicole Schweikardt. Answering UCQs Under Updates and in the Presence of Integrity Constraints. In ICDT, pages 8:1-8:19, 2018. Google Scholar
  6. Luciana S Buriol, Gereon Frahling, Stefano Leonardi, Alberto Marchetti-Spaccamela, and Christian Sohler. Counting Triangles in Data Streams. In PODS, pages 253-262, 2006. Google Scholar
  7. Rada Chirkova and Jun Yang. Materialized Views. Found. &Trends DB, 4(4):295-405, 2012. Google Scholar
  8. Graham Cormode and Hossein Jowhari. A Second Look at Counting Triangles in Graph Streams (Corrected). Theor. Comput. Sci., 683:22-30, 2017. Google Scholar
  9. Talya Eden, Amit Levi, Dana Ron, and C Seshadhri. Approximately Counting Triangles in Sublinear Time. In FOCS, pages 614-633, 2015. Google Scholar
  10. Monika Henzinger, Sebastian Krinninger, Danupon Nanongkai, and Thatchaphol Saranurak. Unifying and Strengthening Hardness for Dynamic Problems via the Online Matrix-Vector Multiplication Conjecture. In STOC, pages 21-30, 2015. Google Scholar
  11. Muhammad Idris, Martín Ugarte, and Stijn Vansummeren. The Dynamic Yannakakis Algorithm: Compact and Efficient Query Processing Under Updates. In SIGMOD, pages 1259-1274, 2017. Google Scholar
  12. Hossein Jowhari and Mohammad Ghodsi. New Streaming Algorithms for Counting Triangles in Graphs. In COCOON, pages 710-716, 2005. Google Scholar
  13. Ahmet Kara, Hung Q. Ngo, Milos Nikolic, Dan Olteanu, and Haozhe Zhang. Counting Triangles under Updates in Worst-Case Optimal Time. CoRR, abs/1804.02780, 2018. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02780.
  14. Christoph Koch, Yanif Ahmad, Oliver Kennedy, Milos Nikolic, Andres Nötzli, Daniel Lupei, and Amir Shaikhha. DBToaster: Higher-Order Delta Processing for Dynamic, Frequently Fresh Views. VLDB J., 23(2):253-278, 2014. Google Scholar
  15. Paraschos Koutris, Semih Salihoglu, and Dan Suciu. Algorithmic Aspects of Parallel Data Processing. Found. &Trends DB, 8(4):239-370, 2018. Google Scholar
  16. Andrew McGregor, Sofya Vorotnikova, and Hoa T Vu. Better Algorithms for Counting Triangles in Data Streams. In PODS, pages 401-411, 2016. Google Scholar
  17. Hung Q. Ngo. Worst-Case Optimal Join Algorithms: Techniques, Results, and Open Problems. In PODS, pages 111-124, 2018. Google Scholar
  18. Hung Q. Ngo, Christopher Ré, and Atri Rudra. Skew Strikes Back: New Developments in the Theory of Join Algorithms. SIGMOD Record, 42(4):5-16, 2013. Google Scholar
  19. Milos Nikolic and Dan Olteanu. Incremental View Maintenance with Triple Lock Factorization Benefits. In SIGMOD, pages 365-380, 2018. Google Scholar
  20. Thomas Schwentick and Thomas Zeume. Dynamic Complexity: Recent Updates. SIGLOG News, 3(2):30-52, 2016. Google Scholar
  21. Virginia Vassilevska Williams. On Some Fine-Grained Questions in Algorithms and Complexity. In ICM, volume 3, pages 3431-3472, 2018. Google Scholar
  22. Thomas Zeume. The Dynamic Descriptive Complexity of k-Clique. Inf. Comput., 256:9-22, 2017. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail