(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 65

Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2010

Partial Aggregation for Multidimensional

Online Analytical Processing Structures
Naeem Akhtar Khan1 and Abdul Aziz2
1
Faculty of Information Technology,
University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
naeemkhan@ucp.edu.pk
2
Faculty of Information Technology,
University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
aziz@ucp.edu.pk

Abstract: Partial pre-computation for OLAP (On-Line-
Analytic Processing) databases has become an important
research area in recent years. Partial pre-aggregation is
implemented to speed up the response time of queries that are
posed for the array-like decision support interface, subject to the
different constraint that all pre-computed aggregates must fit
into storage of a pre-determined calculated size. The target
query workload contains all base and aggregate cells that are
stored in a multidimensional structure (i.e. cube). These queries
are in fact range queries pre-defined by users for the support of
decision makers. The query workload of an OLAP scenario is
the set of queries expected by the users. Most of the published
research only deals with the optimization for the workload of
views in the context of ROLAP (Relational OLAP). Many
researchers have criticized partial-computation schemes,
optimized for views that lack of support to ad-hoc querying. The
other main aspect is that a view may be too large for pre-
computation that calculate very small answers. In this paper, we
study the problems of partial pre-computation for point queries,
which are best for MOLAP (Multidimensional OLAP)
environment. We introduce multidimensional approach for
efficiency of the cover-based query processing and the
effectiveness of PC Cubes.
Keywords: OLAP, MOLAP, Data-Cubes, Data warehouse.
1. Introduction
A data warehouse (DW) is centralized repository of
summarized data with the main purpose of exploring the
relationship between independent, dimensions, static
variables and dependent, dynamic, variables facts or
measures. There is a trend within the data warehousing
community towards the separation of the requirements for
preparation and storage necessary for analyzing the
accumulated data and the requirements for the exploration
of the data with the necessary tools and functionality
required [1]. In terms of the storage necessities, a
convergent tendency is towards a multi-dimensional
hypercube model [2]. On the other hand in terms of analysis
and the tools required for On-Line Analytic Processing
(OLAP), there is a trend towards standardizing this as well;
e.g., the efficient OLAP Council’s Multi-Dimensional
Application Programmers Interface (MD-API). Although
the trends are for separating the storage from the analysis,
the actual physical implementation of DW/OLAP systems
reconnects them. This is an evident from the parade of
acronyms used today, e.g., MOLAP, ROLAP, DOLAP,
HOLAP, etc., where all physical implementation determines
the advantages and disadvantages of storage access an
analysis capabilities and also determines any possible
extensions in future to the model. In the models quoted
above, the two most common in practice are the
Multidimensional On-line Analytic Processing (MOLAP)
model and the Relational On-line Analytic Processing
(ROLAP) model. The main advantage of ROLAP, which
depends on relational database (RDB) technology, is that the
database technology is well standardized (e.g., SQL2) and is
readily available too. This permits for the implementation of
a physical system, based on readily available technology and
open standards. As this technology is well studied and
researched, there are mechanisms which allow for
transactions and authorization schemes, thus allowing for
multi-user systems with the ability to update the data as
required.
The main disadvantage of this technology is that the query
language as it exists (SQL) is not so sufficiently powerful or
flexible enough to support true OLAP features [1].
Furthermore, there is an impedance difficulty, that the
results returned, tables, always required to be converted to
another form before further programming abilities can be
performed. The main advantage of MOLAP, which depends
on generally proprietary multi-dimensional (MDD) database
technology, is based on the disadvantages of ROLAP and is
the major reason for its creation. MOLAP queries are quite
powerful and flexible in terms of OLAP processing. The
physical model further closely matches the
multidimensional model, and the impedance issue is
remedied within a vendor’s side. However, there are
disadvantages of the MOLAP physical model: 1st) There is
no real standard for MOLAP; 2nd) there are no off-the-shelf
MDD databases per se; 3rd) there are scalability problems;
and 4th) there are problems with authorizations and
transactions. As the physical implementation ultimately
determines the abilities of the system, it would be advised to
find a technology that combines and maximizes the
advantages of both ROLAP and MOLAP while at the same
time minimizing the dis-advantages.
Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) has become a basic
component of modern decision support systems. As claimed
in [3] introduced the data-cube, a relational operator as well
as model used for computing summary views of data that
can, in turn, significantly improve the response time of core
OLAP operations such as roll-up, drill down, and slice and
66 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2010

dice, drill down approach is reflected in Figure 1. Typically approaches. The main issue, as outlined in [6] is the
developed on top of relational data warehouses these indexing problem for the fastest execution of OLAP queries.
summary views are formed by aggregating values across The main problem for ROLAP is that it does not offer an
different attribute combinations. For a d-dimensional input immediate and fast index for OLAP queries. Many well-
set R, there are 2d probable group bys. A data-cube as well known vendors have chosen the sacrifice scalability for
as a lattice which is often used for representing the inherent performance. Query performance issue is discussed for
relationships between group-bys [5], there are two standard ROLAP and proposed a novel, distributed multi-
data-cube representations: ROLAP (set of relational tables) dimensional ROLAP efficient indexing scheme [7]. They
and MOLAP (multi-dimensional OLAP). The main showed that the ROLAP advantage for high scalability can
differences between ROLAP and MOLAP architectures are be maintained, while at the same time providing a rapid
shown in Table 1 [4]. index for OLAP queries. They proposed a distributed
indexing efficient scheme which is a combination of packed
R-trees with distributed disk striping and Hilbert curve
based data ordering. Their method requires very meager
communication volume between processors and works in
very low bandwidth connectivity multi-processor
environments such as Beowulf type processor clusters or
workstation farms. There is no requirement of a shared disk
and scales well with respect to the number of processors
used, and for further improving the scalability of ROLAP
with respect to the size and dimension of the data set (which
is already better than MOLAP’s scalability), they extend
their indexing scheme to the partial cube case.
The large number of group-bys, 2d, is a major problem in
practice for any data-cube scheme. They considered the case
Figure 1. Hierarchies in data
where they do not wish to build (materialize) all group-bys,
The array-based structure, MOLAP (Multi-dimensional but only a subset. For example, a user definitely wants to
OLAP), has the advantage that native arrays provide an only materialize those group-bys that are frequently used,
immediate form of indexing for queries of cube. Research thereby saving disk space and time for the cube
has shown, however, that MOLAP has scalability problems construction. The problem was to find a best way to answer
[6]. For example, high-dimension data-cubes represent effectively those less frequent OLAP queries which required
tremendously sparse spaces that are not easily adapted to the group-bys that had not yet been materialized. Solving this
MOLAP model. Hybrid indexing schemes are normally problem they presented an indexing scheme, based on
used, significantly diminishing the power of the model. “surrogate group-bys”, which answers such queries
effectively. Their experiments showed that their distributed
Table 1: ROLAP Vs MOLAP query engine is almost as efficient on “virtual” group-bys as
it is on ones that actually exist. In summary, they claimed
Feature ROLAP MOLAP that their method provides a framework for distributed high
performance indexing for ROLAP cubes with the following
Usage Variable Good performance properties [7].
performance
In practical, it shows lower communication volume, fully
Relational engine Multidimensional engine adapted to external memory. There is no requirement of
Storage Tables/tuples Proprietary arrays shared disk, maintainable, incrementally; it is efficient for
and Access
SQL access Lack of a standard spatial searches in various dimensions, scalable with respect
language language
to data sizes, dimensions, and number of processors. They
Third party tools Sparse data compression
Database
implemented their distributed multi-dimensional ROLAP
Easy updating Difficult updating indexing scheme in STL and MPI, C++ and tested it on a 17
Size
Large space for 2% index space
indexes node Beowulf cluster (a frontend and 16 compute nodes).
Gigabyte-Terabyte Gigabyte While easily extendable for sharing everything multi-
processors, their algorithms performed well on these low-
Moreover, since MOLAP requires to be integrated with cost commodity-based systems. Their experiments showed
standard relational databases, middleware of some form that for RCUBE index construction and updating, close to
must be employed for handling the conversion between optimal speed has been achieved. A RCUBE index having
relational and array-based data representations. The fully materialized data cube of ≈640 million rows (17 Giga-
efficiency of relational model, ROLAP (Relational OLAP), bytes) on a 16 processor cluster can be generated in just
does not suffer by such restrictions. In standard relational within 1 minute. Their method for distributed query
tables its summary records are stored directly without any resolution also exhibited good speedup achieving, for
need for data conversion. ROLAP table based data example, a speedup of 13.28 on just 16 processors. For
representation does not pose scalability problems. Yet, many distributed query resolution in partial data-cubes, their
current commercial well-known systems use the MOLAP experiments showed that searches against absent (i.e. non-
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 67
Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2010

materialized) group-bys can typically be easily resolved at various dimensions that characterize the facts. For example,
only a small additional cost. Their results demonstrated that in a area of retail, typical indicators are price and amount of
it is possible to build a ROLAP data-cube that is scalable a purchase, dimensions being location, product, customer
and tightly integrated with the standard relational database and time. A dimension is mostly organized in hierarchy, for
approach and, at the same time, provide an efficient index to example the location dimension can be aggregated in city,
OLAP queries. division, province, country.
The "star schema" molds the data as a simple cube, where
2. DW and OLAP Technologies hierarchical relationship in a dimension is not explicit but is
rather encapsulated in attributes; the model of star schema
The prominent definition of Data Warehouse is a "subject-
with dimensions is reflected in Figure 2.
oriented, integrated, nonvolatile and time-variant collection
of data in support of management's decisions" [8]. A data
warehouse is a well organized single site repository of
information collected from different sources. In data
warehouse, information is organized around major subjects
and is modeled so as fast access to summarize data. "OLAP"
as discussed in [9],[10] refers to analysis functionalities
generally used for exploring the data. Data warehouse has
become a most important topic in the commercial world as
well as in the researcher’s community. Data warehouse
technology has been mostly used in business world, in
finance or retail areas for example. The main concern is to
take benefits from the massive amount of data that relies in Figure 2. Star Schema
operational databases. According to [11], the data-modeling The dimension tables are normalized by “snowflake
paradigm for a data warehouse must fulfill the requirements schema”, and make it possible for explicitly representing the
that are absolutely different from the data models in OLTP hierarchies by separately identifying dimension in its
environments, the main comparison between OLTP and different granularities. At last, when multiple fact tables are
OLAP environment is reflected in Table 2. required, the "fact constellation" or "galaxy schema" model
allows the design of collection of stars. OLAP architectures
Table 2: OLTP Vs OLAP
adopt a multi-tier architecture as reflected in Figure 3 where
Feature OLTP OLAP
first tier is a warehouse server, implemented by a relational
DBMS. Data of interest must be extracted from OLTP
Amount of data
retrieved Small Large systems (operational legacy databases), extracted, cleaned
per transaction and transformed by ETL (Extraction, Transformation,
Level of data Detailed Aggregated
Loading) tools before going to load in the warehouse.

Views Pre-defined User-defined

Age of data Current (60- Historical 5-10 years and
90 days) also current
Typical write Update, Bulk insert, almost no
operation insert, delete deletion
Tables Flat tables Multi-Dimensional tables
Figure 3. How does an OLAP piece fit together
Number of Large Low-Med
users This process aims to consolidate heterogeneous schema
Data High (24 hrs, Low-Med (structure heterogeneity, semantic heterogeneity) and for
availability 7 days) reducing data in order to make it conform to the data
Database size Med (GB- High (TB – PB) warehouse model (by implementing aggregation, dis-
TB) cretization functions). Then the data warehouse holds high
Query Requires Already “optimized” quality, efficient historical and homogeneous data. The
Optimizing experience second tier is a data mart, a data mart handles data received
from the data warehouse, which is reduced for a selected
The data model of the data warehouse must be simple for subject or category.
the decision maker to understand and for write queries, and The main focus of data marts is to isolate data of interest for
must get maximum efficiency from queries. Data warehouse a smaller scope or department, thus permitting the focusing
models are called hyper-cubes or multidimensional models on optimization needs for this data and increase more
and have been prescribed by [12]. The Models are designed security control. However this intermediate tier of data mart
for representing measurable indicators or facts and the is optional and not mandatory. The OLAP server is
68
implemented at 3rd level. It optimizes and calculates the
hypercube, i.e. the set of fact values for all the relevant
tuples of instances for different dimensions (also called
embers). In order for optimizing accesses against the data,
query results are advance calculated in the form of
aggregates. OLAP operators allow materializing different
views of the hypercube, allowing interactive queries from
decision makers and analysis of the data. Common OLAP
operations include drilldown, roll-up, slice and dice, rotate.
The fourth tier is an OLAP client, which provides a user
interface with various reporting tools, analysis tools and
data mining tools for obtaining results. Software solutions
are existed for a traditional use.
3. Distributed Index Construction for ROLAP
Different methods have been proposed and recommended
for building ROLAP data-cubes [13], [14], [15] but there are
only very few results available for the indexing of such
cubes. For sequential query processing, [16] proposed an
indexing model, which is composed of a collection of b-
trees. While adequate for low-dimensional data-cubes, b-
trees are inappropriate for higher dimensions in that (a)
multiple, redundant attribute orderings are required to
support arbitrary user queries (b) their performance
deteriorates rapidly with increased dimensionality.
In [17] proposed the cube-tree, an indexing model which is
based on the concept of a packed R-tree [18]. In the
dimension of parallel query processing, a typical approach
used by current commercial systems like ORACLE 9i RAC
for improving throughput by distributing a stream of
incoming queries over multiple processors and having each
processor answer a subset of queries. But this type of an
approach provides no speedup for each individual query.
For OLAP queries, which are time consuming, the
parallelization of each query is important for the scalability
of the entire OLAP system. With respect to the
parallelization for general purpose environments of R-tree
queries, a number of researchers have presented solutions.
As claimed in [19] Koudas, Faloutsos and Kamel presented
a Master R-tree structure that employs a centralized index
and a collection of distributed data files. Schnitzer and
Leutenegger’s Master-Client R-tree [20] improves upon the
earlier model by partitioning the central index into a smaller
master index as well as a set of associated client indexes.
While offering considerable performance advantages in
generic indexing environments, neither approach is well-
suited for OLAP environment systems. In addition to the
sequential problems on the main server node, both utilize
partitioning methods that can lead to the localization of
searches. Furthermore, neither approach provides the
methods for incremental updates.
Data reliability is major issue in data warehouses and many
solutions have been proposed for its solution. Replication is
a widely used mechanism for protecting permanent data loss
while replica placement will significantly impact data
reliability. Several replica placement policies for different
objectives, have been proposed and deployed in real-world
systems, like RANDOM in GFS, PTN in RAID, Q-rot in
[16], [13], [21] have analyzed how the system parameters,
such as object size, system capacity, disk and switch
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2010
bandwidth, could affect the system’s reliability. However,
they only focused on the rough trend about their impact but
did not illustrate the correct optimal values of these
parameters. The co-impact of these parameters was not also
discussed. Furthermore, for getting the accurate reliability
value, some models are so complicated that it is difficult to
figure out the best value of each parameter.
In [22] worked for designing a reliable large-scale data
warehouse or storage system and presented a new object-
based-repairing Markov model, which induces many key
challenges. One problem was to figure out some basic
system parameters, such as the number of nodes, the total
number of stored objects and the bandwidth of switch and
the node. For designing a reliable system with the optimal
system parameters, compared with previous work, their
approach makes a significant contribution in two aspects.
Firstly, they presented a new object-based Markov model for
quantifying the impact of key system parameters on the
system reliability in three replica placement strategies. They
compared their model with previous complex models; this
object-based compact model not only turns to be easier for
solving because of its smaller state transition matrix, but
also leads to more integrative and practical efficient results.
Secondly, they proposed a two-step analyzing process.
The first is to find out the comparatively precise optimal
value of a system parameter by independently analyzing its
impact on the system reliability when other system
parameters are fixed. The second is to figure out the best
possible combination of these parameters by analyzing their
integrated and complex impacts on the system reliability
while all of them are tuned. Their analysis results showed
that the optimal values do exist and have simple formulas.
They presented a new efficient object-based repair model
and by analyzing this model, they worked out the individual
optimal value of parameters and their optimal combination.
The results obtained by them can provide the engineers with
direct instructions to design reliable systems.
4. Related Work
Here we introduce the lattice view that depicts the
relationships between existing views, some algorithms of the
pre-computation of views, answering query using the
materialized views and view selection.
4.1 The View Lattice Framework
The CUBE BY in [23] has resulted in the computation of
views which related to SQL queries which has been grouped
on all possible combinations of the dimension attributes.
Those views are usually denoted by the grouping attributes,
e.g. T, L, P, LT, PT, PL, PLT, and All for the example of
database with three attributes Time(T), Location(L) and
Product(P). As claimed by [24] that a lattice is used to depict
the relationship between views. An aggregate view is
represented by each node in the lattice. In the lattice view
edge existed form node i to node j, view j can be computed
from view i to view j which contains one attribute less than
view i. In this case, view i is called, parent view of j. in this
situation there is a basic view on which every view is
dependent. The complete aggregation view “ALL” can be
computed from any other view of lattice.
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 69
Figure 4. Lattice View
4.2 Pre-computation of aggregates
In Figure 4 lattice views are shown, for example database
which have three dimensions, Time, Location and Product
which are reflected as T, L and P respectively. A view is
labeled by the dimension’s name, where it is aggregated on
view PLT is the basic view while PL is parent view.
A lot of aggregation is involved on OLAP queries in data
warehouse. Performance can greatly be improved by the pre-
computation of aggregates. Many researchers have
developed pre-computation algorithms for efficient
computing all possible views, which are so called view
materialization. In [25] and [26] different efficient view
materialization algorithms have been proposed, e.g.,
Overlap, Pipesoft and PipeHash, which incorporate many
efficient optimization techniques, such as using the data
sorting in a particular order for computing all views that are
prefixes in that order, computing a view from its smallest
previously computed parent, and computing the views with
most common prefixes in a pipelined technique.
In [27] there are some efforts have been made for studying,
how the skewed data may affect the pre-computation of
aggregates and an approach for dynamically manage the
memory usage is recommended. A comparison has been
made in [28], difference between the view materialization in
MOLAP and ROLAP further an array-based pre-
computation efficient algorithm for MOLAP is proposed. In
this algorithm the partitions of views is stored in main
memory array and further overlaps the computation of
different views while using minimum storage memory for
each view.
In [29] author examined the pre-computation on compressed
MOLAP database and some algorithms for the computation
of view without de-compression is proposed. In [30]
suggested another pre-computation algorithm for MOLAP.
One distinct feature in these algorithms was that the
aggregation cells are managed in the similar way as the
source data. Primary cells and aggregation cells are stored
together single data structure, further proposed one
multidimensional array, which allows them for quickly
accessing. In this algorithm pre-computation considers the
points in multidimensional space. The algorithm examines
the coordinates of the cells and relies on the relationships
among cells for determining how to perform efficient
aggregation. A graph-theoretical model is employed for
ensuring the correctness of the summation computation.
Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2010
4.3 View Selection
The main issue in full computation of views is storage
space; so many researchers study this problem and
recommended partial-computation. In [31] efficient
approach was proposed for choosing a set of views for
materialization under a situation of limited storage space.
They introduced a linear cost model; this algorithm assumes
that the cost of answering a query is related to the size of
view from which the respond of the query can easily be
computed. This linear cost model was verified by the
experiments. In a greedy view selection algorithm which
tries to decide which aggregate view is best for minimizing
the query cost. This greedy view selection algorithm first
chooses the base view. Materializing one more view can
allow some queries which can be easily answered by a
smaller metalized view, in this way query cost can be
reduced. Their proposed algorithm chooses the view which
produces the more reduction in query cost. Research proved
that the benefit of the aggregate views selected by this
algorithm in no worse than (0.63-f) times the benefit of an
optimized selection. The same problem was discussed in
[32] and another view selection algorithm PBS (Pick by
Size) was proposed. The main difference was that PBS
selects the views solely based on the size of the views. In
each turn, the view with the smaller size from unselected
views is chosen until the total size of the selected views
reaches the allocated space limit.
4.4 Query Processing
In [33], the traditional query optimization algorithms were
generalized to optimize the query in the presence of
materialized views. In [34] proposed some techniques for
rewriting a given SQL query, such that it uses one or more
than one materialized view. They also proposed a semantic
approach for determining whether the information existing
in a view is sufficient for answering a query. Another query
re-writing method was suggested in [35], this technique can
utilize the views having different granularities, aggregation
granularities and selection regions. Generally, for an OLAP
query, their can be many equivalent re-writings using
different materialized cubes/views in different ways. Their
execution cost is different from one another. An efficient
algorithm is also proposed in [35] for determining the set of
materialized views used in query re-writing.
5. Recommendations for an Efficient Partial
pre-Aggregation
A completely full pre-computation, where all possible
aggregates have been pre-computed, can provide the best
and most efficient query performance, but in our point of
view this approach in not recommended for the following
reasons:
• A full pre-computation requires a great storage space
for aggregates, so it often exceeds the available
space.
• This technique is not based on cost effective use of
resources-beneficial, in [32], it is mentioned that the
gains from pre-computation outweigh the cost of
further disk space after some level of pre-
computation.
70
• Maintenance cost is increased.
• It takes long load time.
• A full pre-computation is not suitable as very sparse
cube (wastage of space) for high cardinality.
However in the situation of fully pre-computation
environment, to overcome the storage limitations it is
advisable that cube may be partitioned. One logical cube of
data should be spread across multiple physical cubes on
distinct servers. Divide and Concur approach helps alleviate
the scalability limitations of full pre-computation approach.
The other approach, which is partial pre-computation of
aggregates, can resolve problems of fully aggregation. The
main objective of a partial pre-computation technique is to
select a certain amount of aggregates for computing before
querying time, in this way query answering time can be
optimized. But there are two major issues about the
optimization process:
• How many partial pre-computed aggregates should
be computed?
• What kind of queries is optimized for pre-
computation strategy?
The first question depends upon the storage available, we
recommends that 40% of all possible aggregates should be
computed in advance. Few years back it was recommended
by Microsoft, as the vendor of one of the popular OLAP
systems that 20% of all possible aggregates should be
computed in advance, but now the technology has improved
and storage capacity can be achieved by very low cost. The
best answer of second question is that these queries should
be those that most expected by the decision maker of OLAP
application.
This type of answer in not so easy because it varies from
user to user and application to application, for this purpose
and understanding the question systematically, one needs to
precisely categorize the chunk of queries as an object for
optimization, this type set of queries or expected queries is
often called ”query workload”. Pattern of expected queries
can be obtained from other same type of case studies and
navigational data analysis task. There are many algorithms
for partial pre-computation which have already been
discussed. For optimized and efficient processing of OLAP
queries, most commonly used approach is to store the results
of frequently issued queries by decision makers in to
summary tables, and further makes use of them for
evaluating other queries, this approach is best. In our point
of view PBS (Pick by size) algorithm is so fast and best as it
will facilitate database administrators for determining the
points, where diminishing returns outweigh the cost of the
additional storage space. This algorithm also shows how
much space should be allocated for pre-computation.
6. Conclusion
The partial pre-computation is most popular research area in
OLAP environment. Most of the published papers for partial
pre-computation are about optimized performance of views
as the query workload. Practically users do not care about
the processing overhead and the time used in determining
the output of the given query, when planning to implement
partial pre-computation strategy. For implementation of
point queries, the processing overhead is most important
fact of consideration. PBS approach is efficient, and
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2010
selection by PBS is much effective because PC Cube
generated by the PBS leads to shorter time required for
answering the point queries. It has most excellent overall
performance among variations of member selection
algorithms.
References
[1] Thomsen, Erik, OLAP Solutions: Building
Multidimensional Information Systems, John Wiley
and Sons, 1997.
[2] Agrawal, R., Gupta, A., Sarawagi, S., “Modeling
Multidimensional Databases”, Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Data Engineering, pp.
232-243, 1997.
[3] J. Gray, A. Bosworth, A. Layman, and H. Pirahesh,
“Data cube: A relational aggregation operator
generalizing group-by, cross-tab, and sub-totals”,
Proceeding of the 12th International Conference On
Data Engineering, pages 152–159, 1996.
[4] Aejandro A. Vaisman, “Data Warehousing, OLAP, and
Materialized Views”, A Survey Technical Report
TR015-98, University of Buenos Aires, Computer
Science Department, 1998.
[5] V. Harinarayan, A. Rajaraman, and J. Ullman,
“Implementing data cubes”, Proceedings of the 1996
ACM SIGMOD Conference, pages 205–216, 1996.
[6] S. Agarwal, R. Agrawal, P. Deshpande, A. Gupta, J.
Naughton, R. Ramakrishnan, and S.Sarawagi, “On
the computation of multidimensional aggregates”,
Proceedings of the 22nd International VLDB
Conference, pages 506–521, 1996.
[7] F. Dehne, T. Eavis and A. Rau-Chaplin, “Parallel
Multi-Dimensional ROLAP Indexing”, Proceedings
of the 3rd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on
Cluster Computing and the Grid, (CCGRID’03)
2003.
[8] W.H. Inmon Building the Data Warehouse 3rd Edition,
Eds.Wiley and Sons, 1996.
[9] S. Chaudhuri, U. Dayal “An Overview of Data
Warehousing and Olap Technolog”, SIGMOD Record
26(1), 1997.
[10] P. Vassiliadis P., T. Sellis, “A Survey of Logical
Models for OLAP Databases”, SIGMOD Record
Volume 28, Number 1, March, 1999.
[11] R. Kimball, The Data Warehouse Toolkit, J.Wiley
and Sons, Inc, 1996.
[12] L. Cabibbo and R. Torlone, “A Logical Approach to
Multidimensional Databases”, Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Extending Database
Technology (EDBT'98), Valencia, Spain, 1998.
[13] V. Harinarayan, A. Rajaraman, and J. Ullman,
“Implementing data cubes” Proceedings of the 1996
ACM SIGMOD Conference, pages 205–216, 1996.
[14] K. Ross and D. Srivastava, “Fast computation of
sparse data cubes”, Proceedings of the 23rd VLDB
Conference, pages 116–125, 1997.
[15] S. Sarawagi, R. Agrawal, and A.Gupta, “On
computing the data cube”, Technical Report RJ10026,
IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, California,
1996.
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 71
[16] H. Gupta, V. Harinarayan, A. Rajaraman, and J.
Ullman, “Index selection for olap”, Proceeding of the
13th International Conference on Data Engineering,
pages 208–219,1997.
[17] N. Roussopoulos, Y. Kotidis, and M. Roussopolis,
“Cubetree: Organization of the bulk incremental up-
dates on the data cube”, Proceedings of the 1997
ACM SIG-MOD Conference, pages 89–99, 1997.
[18] N. Roussopolis and D. Leifker, “Direct spatial search
on pictorial databases using packed r-trees”,
Proceedings of the 1985 ACM SIGMOD Conference,
pages 17–31, 1985.
[19] N. Koudas, C. Faloutsos, and I. Kamel, “De-
clustering spatial databases on multi- computer
architecture”, In Proceedings of Extended Database
Technologies, pages 592–614, 1996.
[20] B. Schnitzer and S. Leutenegger, “Master-client r-
trees: a new parallel architecture”, 11th
International Conf-erence of Scientific and
Statistical Database Management, pages 68–77, 1999.
[21] I. Kamel and C. Faloutsos, “On packing r-trees”,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Information and Knowledge Management, pages
490–499, 1993.
[22] K.Du, Z.Hu, H.Wang,Y.Chen, S.Yang and Z.Yuan,
“Reliability Design for Large Scale Data
Warehouses”, Journal of Computing, Vol.3, No.10,
pp 78-85 October 2008.
[23] J.Gray, A.Bosworth, A.Layman, H.Pirahesh., “Data
Cube: A Relational Aggregation Operator
Generalizing Group-By,Cross-Tabs, and Sub-Totals”,
In Proceedings of International Conference on Data
Engineering (ICE’96), New Orleans, February,1996.
[24] V. Harinarayan, A.Rajaraman, and J.D.Ullman,
“Implementing Data Cubes Efficiently”, In
Proceedings of SIGMOD, pages 205-216,1996.
[25] Sameet Agarwal, Rakesh Agarwal, Prasad M.
Deshpandre, Asnish Gupta, Jeffrey F.Naughton,
Ragnu Ramakrishnan, Sunita Sarawagi, “On the
Computation of Multidimensional Aggregates”, In
Proceedings of the 22nd VLDB Conference, Bombay,
India, pages 506-521,1996.
[26] P.M.Deshpande, S.Agarwal, J.F.Naughton, and
R.Ramakrishnan, “Computation of Multidimensional
Aggregates”, Technical Report 1314, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1996.
[27] Yu,J.X., Hongjun Lu., “Hash in Place with Memory
Shifting: Datacube Computation Revisited”, In
Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Data
Engineering. Page: 254 March, 1999.
[28] Y.Zhao, P.M. Deshpande, and J.F.Naughton., “An
Array-based Algorithm for Simulataneous
Multidimensional Aggregates”, In Proceedings of
ACM SIGMOD, pages 159-170, 1997.
[29] Li,J.,Rotem, D., Srivastava, J., “Aggregation
Algorithm for very large compressed Data
Warehouses”, In Proceedings of 25th very large
Database (VLDB) Conference. Edinburgh, Scotland,
1999.
[30] Woshun Luk., “ADODA: A Desktop Online Data
Analyzer”, In 7th International Conference on
Vol. 2, No. 2, February 2010
Database Systems for Advanced Applications
(FASFAA,01), Hong Kong, China, April,2001.
[31] V.Harinarayan, A.Rajaraman, and J.D.Ullman,
“Impleminting Data Cubes Efficienty”, In
Proceedings of SIGMOD, pages 205-206, 1996.
[32] A.Shukla, P.Deshpande, and J.Naughton,
“Materialized View Selection for Multidimensional
Datasets”, In Proceedings on 24th VLDB Conference,
New York, 1998.
[33] S.Chaudhuri,R.Krishnamurthy, S.Potamianos, and
K.Shim., “Optimizing Quereis with Materialized
Views”, In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International
Conference on Data Engineering, pages 190-200,
1995.
[34] D.Srivastava, S.Dar, H.V.Jagadish, A.Y.Levy.,
“Answering Queries with Aggregation using views”,
In Proceedings of 22nd VLDB Conference, Bombay,
India, pages 318-329, 1996.
[35] C.S.Park, M.H.Kim and Y.J.Lee., “Finding an
Efficient Rewriting of OLAP Queries Using
Materialized Views in Data Warehouses”, Decision
Support Systems, vol.32, No.4, pages 379-399,2002.
Authors Profile
Naeem Akhtar Khan received the B.S. degree in Computer
Science from Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, Pakistan
in 2005 and M.S. degree in Computer Science from University of
Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan in 2008. He is currently pursuing
Ph.D. (Computer Science) degree in University of Central, Punjab,
Lahore, Pakistan. His research interests include large-scale data
management, data reliability, Data Mining, MOLAP.
Dr. Abdul Aziz did his M.Sc. from University of the Punjab,
Pakistan in 1989; M.Phil and Ph.D in Computer Science from
University of East Anglia, UK. He secured many honors and
awards during his academic career from various institutions. He is
currently working as full Professor at the University of Central
Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. He is the founder and Chair of Data
Mining Research Group at UCP. Dr. Aziz has delivered lectures in
many universities as guest speaker. He has published large number
of research papers in different refereed international journals and
conferences. His research interests include Knowledge Discovery
in Databases (KDD) - Data Mining, Pattern Recognition, Data
Warehousing and Machine Learning.
He is member of editorial board for various well known journals
and international conferences including IEEE publications. (e-mail:
aziz@ucp.edu.pk).