Patent Grant
9639572
Embodiments relate to databases, and in particular, to enhancements of database language that simplify querying.
Unless otherwise indicated herein, the approaches described in this section are not prior art to the claims in this application and are not admitted to be prior art by inclusion in this section.
A database is a powerful tool for the storage, organization, and analysis of large volumes of data. At a low level, a database may employ fundamental data definition and processing that is based upon a relational model. In particular, data definition defines data types with sufficient metadata being associated therewith. Data definition may also involve definition of a database structure such as columns and tables. Many database structures rely upon Structured Query Language (SQL) as the standard approach to define, read, and manipulate data within a database. In its standard form, SQL itself reflects the basic relational model of the database. Various other types of applications (e.g. toolsets) are constructed by developers to allow consumers to interact with the database in an efficient and intuitive manner. Such applications are typically provided in an application layer overlying the database.
The overlying applications, such as consumer technology and toolsets provided by developers, may introduce higher-level models, e.g., entity-relationship models (ERMs) in order to contribute semantics and ease consumption by the user. In particular, a plain data model on the SQL level only contains the requisite information to process data on the SQL level. Adding more information in a declarative fashion can also make data models more comprehensible, thereby easing their consumption by users.
One example of a higher-level models is an OData Entity Model (EDM) In particular OData is a web protocol standard providing platform-agnostic interoperability for querying and updating data. OData leverages web technologies such as HTTP, Atom Publishing Protocol (AtomPub), and JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) in order to provide access to information from a variety of applications. The simplicity and extensibility of OData can provide consumers with a predictable interface for querying a variety of data sources.
Other examples of higher-level models may include the Semantic Layer in the Business Intelligence (BI) platform of SAP AG in Walldorf, Germany, Java Persistence API (JPA) and enterprise objects in Java, or the business objects frameworks in Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) of SAP AG. Also, the River programming model and the River Definition Language (RDL) of the River application development framework for SAP AG in Walldorf, Germany are based on entities linked by relationships.
Even though those higher-level models may share many commonalties, the individual information cannot be shared across stacks. That is, the higher-level models mentioned above contribute essentially the same kind of additional information, yet that information is provided in different ways that interfere with its being shared across higher level models (e.g., between an OData EDM, and an ERM created using RDL).
This situation results in a fragmented environment with information unable to be shared between applications. To cope with this fragmentation, redundant information is provided, with application developers and customers contributing the same essential information in multiple forms, thereby undesirably increasing overhead.
Moreover, while the developers of consumer technologies may have some knowledge of SQL, they are generally not experts in complex SQL programming Thus, there is a need for an improved language for interacting with relational databases.
Disclosed are techniques employed alone or in combination, to further enhance a database language and improve conciseness and comprehensiveness of query statements in application code. Embodiments may build upon an initial extension of database language to accommodate concepts of entity-relationship models (ERMs). That initial extension may include entities with structured types, and named associations. One technique modifies SQL to allow the SELECT command to specify element path expressions based upon a relationship (e.g., named associations between ERM elements). Another technique modifies SQL to introduce filter expressions suffixed to associations within path expressions, thus improving adherence to locality within query statements. Yet another technique allows a shorthand to “factor out” association path prefixes, thus avoiding lengthy lists of path expressions in order to read several elements from the same nested structure, or a same target entity behind a single association. Other techniques simplifying database querying are also disclosed.
An embodiment of a computer-implemented method comprises providing in a database layer, a database engine and a database comprising data organized according to a relational model. Provided in an application layer, are an entity relationship data model and a query engine in communication with the database engine. The database engine is caused to receive from the query engine, a query in a database language extended to include an entity type and an association, the query further comprising a path expression specifying a relationship between a specified entity and an associated entity. The database engine is caused to return to the query engine, a query result comprising data of the associated entity fetched along the path expression.
An embodiment of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodies a computer program for performing a method comprising providing in a database layer, a database engine and a database comprising data organized according to a relational model. Provided in an application layer, are an entity relationship data model and a query engine in communication with the database engine. The database engine is caused to receive from the query engine, a query in a database language extended to include an entity type and an association, the query further comprising a path expression specifying a relationship between a specified entity and an associated entity. The database engine is caused to return to the query engine, a query result comprising data of the associated entity fetched along the path expression.
An embodiment of a computer system comprises one or more processors and a software program executable on said computer system. The software program is configured to provide in a database layer, a database engine and a database comprising data organized according to a relational model. The software program is further configured to provide in an application layer, an entity relationship data model and a query engine in communication with the database engine. The database engine is caused to receive from the query engine, a query in a database language extended to include an entity type and an association, the query further comprising a path expression specifying a relationship between a specified entity and an associated entity. The database engine is caused to return to the query engine, a query result comprising data of the associated entity fetched along the path expression.
In certain embodiments, the path expression comprises a filter element suffix.
According to some embodiments, the path expression further comprises a shorthand factoring out an association path prefix.
In various embodiments, the database language comprises SQL.
According to particular embodiments, the query comprises SELECT and FROM clauses presented in a revised order.
In certain embodiments, the database comprises an in memory database.
The following detailed description and accompanying drawings provide a better understanding of the nature and advantages of various embodiments.
Described herein are techniques for enhancing a database language to simplify database querying. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous examples and specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. It will be evident, however, to one skilled in the art that the present invention as defined by the claims may include some or all of the features in these examples alone or in combination with other features described below, and may further include modifications and equivalents of the features and concepts described herein.
Disclosed are a number of techniques, which may be employed alone or in combination, in order to further enhance a database language and improve conciseness and comprehensiveness of query statements in application code. Embodiments may build upon an initial extension of database language to accommodate concepts of entity-relationship models (ERMs). That initial extension may include entities with structured types, and named associations.
As discussed in further detail below, one technique that enhances this initial extension, modifies Structured Query Language (SQL) to allow the SELECT command to specify element path expressions based upon a relationship (e.g., named associations between ERM elements).
Another enhancing technique, modifies extended SQL to introduce filter expressions suffixed to associations within path expressions, thus improving adherence to locality within query statements.
Another enhancing technique, allows a shorthand to “factor out” association path prefixes, thus avoiding lengthy lists of path expressions in order to read several elements from the same nested structure, or a same target entity behind a single association.
Another enhancing technique provides an alternative way to specify projection/select clauses in line with nested projection clauses as SELECT from <entity>{ . . . }.
One principle underlying these various techniques is that the enhanced query language be a superset of the standard database language (e.g. standard SQL). This may be expressed in the following way:
(Standard) SQL+QL extensions [+host language-specific adaptations]
The components have the following meanings. Here, (Standard) SQL refers to standard SQL. That is, any standard SQL constructs are supported.
The term query language (QL) extensions is described in connection with various embodiments herein. Those QL extensions are designed in a non-intrusive way, remaining close to SQL.
The term host language-specific adaptations, refers to certain adaptions to syntax details allowed when embedding into programming languages like RDL, Java, ABAP.
A summary of the enhanced query language is now provided.
In particular,
A database engine 810 is also located in the database layer 804. The database engine 810 operates to control the flow of data to and from the database 802. In particular, the database engine 810 controls the flow of data between the database 802 and an overlying application layer 820.
The application layer 820 comprises a query engine 822 that is configured to communicate with the database engine 810. The application layer 820 further includes a data model 824 that organizes data of the underlying database 802, in ways that are useful to an end user 830.
For example, the data model of the application layer 820 may be at a higher-level than the relational model according to which the database is organized. Specifically, one such higher level data model is an entity-relationship model (ERM) 832.
The ERM 832 comprises a collection of individual entities 834, linked together by specific relationships 836. An initial extension 837 of the database language 839 to provide elements (entities 838, associations 840) recognizing and accommodating the entity and relationship concepts of the higher level ERM model 832, is discussed in detail later below in connection with
However, described immediately below are a collection of techniques that may be employed alone or in combination as a further enhancement 841 that initially extended database language. Certain of these techniques may provide a path expression 842 specifying a relationship along which data of an associated entity may be fetched as part of a query. Other techniques may include but are not limited to filter expressions 844, shortcuts 846, and revised clause orders 848.
One or more of these techniques can be incorporated into a query 850 that is issued from the query engine to the database engine 810. Based upon the query and the database language present therein, the database engine 810 is configured to return to the query engine, a query result 852 comprising data selected from the database 802 on the basis of the query, including extensions and/or enhancements thereof, as are described in detail below.
In a third step 906, the database engine is caused to receive from the query engine, a query formulated in an extended database language comprising an entity type and an association, the query further comprising path expression reflecting a relationship between a first specified entity and a second specified second entity.
In a fourth step 908, the database engine is caused to return to the query engine, a query result comprising data selected from the database on the basis of the path expression.
Syntax that may be employed for the enhancement techniques is now described. Starting from the base syntax of standard SQL, the following describes the syntax for extensions being added.
Above, the phrases:
reflect the individual locations where standard SQL is being enhanced according to techniques as described herein.
To comply with SQL, implementations adhere to compliance level 0. This is defined as follows:
$1 SQL-level Consumability: data models are consumable through conventional/standard SQL. This calls for white-box mapping of entity and views to plain relational models, i.e., flat tables.
$2 SQL DDL Interoperability: data models created in the conventional relational model are consumable through enhanced QL.
Thus CDS-based data models are consumable through standard SQL. Furthermore, CDS is not an abstraction or mapping layer on top of relational models and SQL. Rather, CDS is a compatible extension to SQL.
Details of the enhanced Query Language (QL) techniques are now discussed in detail. The following specifies and explains the extensions, while referring to ‘standard’ SQL as the base language. The following is an abbreviated syntax definition for standard SQL:
Embodiments introduce the following extensions to that syntax:
Details regarding implementation of these extensions is now provided below.
Path Expressions Address Nested or Target Elements
The use of path expressions in extended SQL is now illustrated in connection with the following data model. In particular, that data model defines the entities Address and Employee as shown below:
Under some circumstances, it may be desirable to write a query statement in standard SQL for this data model, as follows:
This statement, however, may already be too complex for many application developers. Thus, code patterns similar to that given below, may be used in some pseudo languages:
There are several issues with the code presented immediately above. One issue is the use of an imperative coding style with loops in loops, resulting in 1+n queries being executed or too much data being fetched with SELECT *.
Embodiments as described herein, however, allow SQL to be extended to express path expressions along relationships. This allows the cumbersome standard SQL query expression above, to instead be written as:
SELECT id, name, homeAddress.zipCode FROM Employee WHERE . . .
Within this sample snippet, a path expression along a relationship is used to fetch data from an associated entity. Here, the path expression “homeAddress.zipCode” is used to fetch home address and zip code data for the associated entity “Employee”.
In particular, path expressions allow addressing of elements in nested structures or in entities referred to by associations. As an example, given the data model introduced above, nested elements can be accessed and JOIN simplified, through simple path expressions as follows.
SELECT name, salary.value, orgunit.costcenter FROM Employee;
Here, salary.value is a structured type, and orgunit.costcenter is an association.
This would correspond to the following more complex statement in standard SQL:
SELECT e.name, e.“salary.value”, ou.costcenter FROM Employee e
JOIN OrgUnit ou ON e.orgunit_ID=ou.ID;
Syntax for the path expression is as follows:
The types of leading elements are expected to be structured or associations.
Rules for path expressions are as follows.
Certain implications are noted for path expressions across associations with :m cardinality. This is referenced in the discussion of :m cardinality presented later in this document.
Although reading from structured sources, the result set of the examples above remain flat. The names of elements in the result sets resulting from such path expressions, is the name of the last element in the path. This can be renamed using the [AS alias].
In the event of name conflicts, a compiler error is raised, and an alias specified. An example is shown below:
The result set type structure of the second query is: {name, managerName}
XPath-Like Filter Expressions
Another technique which can be used to simplify query expressions, is the introduction of filter expressions within path expressions. Specifically, instead of collecting all filter conditions in the central WHERE clause at the end, embodiments introduce filter expressions which can be suffixed in square brackets [ ] to associations within path expressions, similar to filter expressions in XPath.
As used herein, “XPath-like filters” refers to adopting the element [<expr>] syntax style of XPath, not the full semantic nor the expression syntax of XPath. An example is as follows.
The syntax is as follows:
Filter expressions can only be appended to elements with association type.
XPath-like filter expressions improve both expressiveness and comprehensiveness. XPath-like filter expressions may also improve adherence to the principle of locality within query statements.
For instance, the following attempt to express the above example without that option:
is not only inferior with respect to capturing intent, it also has the flaw to return duplicates for the employee name:
Any valid filter expression can be used within the square brackets, which could also be used in a WHERE clause. Element names showing up in these expressions are resolved within the scope of the target entity's type structure.
Sibling elements of the association can be referred to by prefixing an element with a “.”, elements from the scope above with “..”, etc.
Embodiments may provide XPath-like filters applied to a FROM clause. This allows queries to be written without classic WHERE clauses, by applying XPath-like filters also on the outermost scope.
For example, the following a query could be used to show the list of cities where employees in TIP with a salary >$100.000 live:
The syntax enhancement in the definition of projectionClause, is shown elsewhere.
Nested Projection Clauses
Rather than writing lengthy lists of path expressions to read several elements from the same nested structure or a same target entity behind a single association, embodiments apply a shorthand by ‘factoring out’ the association path prefix. Some examples are given below.
In particular, the following syntax:
could instead be written in the following shorthand variant:
The second query is semantically and behaviorally the same as the first. This is true for its result set type structure, which in both cases is a flat table with five columns
In the syntax, this is reflected by:
In one example a constraint can specify that a nested select clause can only be placed behind path expressions whose last element's type is structured or an association. Violating this constraint can result in a compilation error.
From a grammatical perspective, the introduction of nested projection clauses has the effect of recursive application of a “{” selectClause “}”, as a select clause is in turn a comma-separated list of element clauses.
If the optional flattened symbol ‘.’ is present before a nested projection clause's opening parenthesis, the elements selected from the nested structure or from an association's target entity, are ‘flattened’ into the parent scope within the result set. If the optional flattened symbol ‘.’ is omitted, a nested structure is preserved corresponding to the structure of the nested projection clause.
An example is now presented in connection with the query shown above.
This query returns a result set with the following type:
In contrast, here is the same query omitting the flattening ‘.’.
This rule applies in a same way to both structured elements as well as associations.
Returning ad-hoc nested structures are now discussed. In addition to referring to existing structure types in source entities and preserving corresponding nested structures in the result set, new nested structures in a result set from a set of elements in a given scope may be created.
For example, the following query:
returns a result set with the following type:
In the syntax, this is reflected by:
projectionCLause+=|“{” selectCLause “}” AS alias
The first nested projection clause in the example above, is not prepended with a reference to an element. Thus, the contained element names are resolved in the outer scope, in this case the structured type of entity Employee. An alias is to be specified to give the resulting structured element a name in the result set.
Revised SQL Clauses Order: SELECT . . . From <Entity>
In addition to the classic SELECT . . . from <entity>, an alternative way to specify projection/select clauses in line with nested projection clauses, is introduced as SELECT from <entity> { . . . }.
For example, instead of writing a query like:
That query can alternatively be written as follows:
Syntax is as follows:
Given the syntax for nested projection clauses as introduced above, it is reused for a FROM clauses variant as shown above. In one example, a constraint can exist specifying that when making use of this syntax variant, the select clause between SELECT and FROM is expected to be empty. Violating this constraint results in a compilation error.
Nested projection clauses may be attributed to the fact that whenever a structured type is referred to (through an element with structured type, or an association referring to an entity with structured type) elements can be selected using the { . . . } as a projection clause, which can be applied recursively. This may be consistently applied also to the root scope of a query referred to by the entity named in the FROM clause.
As a possible benefit, projection clauses follow the pattern of <structured type> (elements), starting with the entity behind the FROM keyword, and nested along resolved associations or structured elements. This allows a consistent ‘recursive’ syntax definition, and subsequent benefits. One such benefit is the ability to provide code completion in editors based on what has already been typed in by the developer.
As mentioned previously, embodiments may build on the extension of the database language to accommodate concepts of higher level models, for example entity-relationship models. Such an initial extension using the SQL database language as an example, is discussed in detail below in connection with
Associations and Structured Elements in Result Sets
Without having to apply any of the further enhancements to SQL that are detailed above, the initially extended database language behavior described in detail below, is applied for selecting associations and structured elements in a query. This consequently results in structured result sets.
For example, the following query refers to the structured element salary and to the association orgunit in its SELECT clause.
SELECT name, salary, orgunit FROM Employee;
The result set for this query is as follows (payload data only, metadata not shown):
Although a structured type, this result set is still ‘essentially flat’. That is, it lacks to-many cardinality changes among the elements. In fact, the above result set could internally also be represented as:
{name, “salary.value”, “salary.currency”, “orgunit._id”}.
Consequently, for structured elements, entities having structured types lead to structured result sets as shown above. The respective element's type in the result set, corresponds to the type used in the definition model. This assumes the types are also represented in the host language.
For associations, in a manner analogous to how associations are represented in the discussion of DDL below, such associations are returned in the result set as nested structures with respective foreign key elements inside (if applicable):
for :l associations: the returned foreign key value(s) allow to fetch the target record;
for :m associations: no foreign key values are returned; the relationship is established through foreign key(s) on the target side or in a link table.
Complemented with the metadata for the association element, this information can later be used to fetch the record from the target entity referred to by an association. This is discussed in connection with associations in FROM clauses.
Reflection support is provided as follows. Having metadata associated with association elements in result sets, requires that in addition to the payload data, relevant metadata available is provided to the consumer. This may be a local consumer in the same address space, or a remote consumer as in an ABAP or Java container, up to user interfaces (UIs) with JavaScript or native clients. This also covers associations obtained through projections from the query through intermediate views.
The instant discussion turns now to examine in detail the initial extension of the database language that provided entities with structured types and named associations.
SQL Extended to Accommodate ERMs
Described herein are techniques for extending a relational model-based database language (e.g. Structured Query Language—SQL), to accommodate higher level entity-relationship models. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous examples and specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. It will be evident, however, to one skilled in the art that the present invention as defined by the claims may include some or all of the features in these examples alone or in combination with other features described below, and may further include modifications and equivalents of the features and concepts described herein.
A lower layer 106 of the database system 100 comprises calculation logic 108 that is designed to interact with the data 105 itself. Such calculation logic 108 may be performed by various engines (e.g. SQL engine, calculation engine, SQL script) in order to provide basic data definition and processing based on the relational model. Such basic data definition can include defining of data types making up the database, associated metadata, and the database structure (e.g. columns, tables). The lower layer 106 of the database system may include SQL script 110, as well as data structures such as tables 112, views 114, and calculation views 116.
The embodiment presented in
Further, while the embodiment presented in
An application layer 118, overlying the calculation logic 108 of the database system 100 comprises control flow logic 120. The control flow logic 120 may be implemented utilizing River Definition Language (RDL) 122 and JavaScript (JS) 124 to reference model concepts such as entities and relationships that are not reflected in basic SQL. This control flow logic 120 may further comprise common languages for defining and consuming data across different containers (e.g. native, ABAP, Java).
As shown in
In particular, the CDS component 130 implements higher-level Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) and services based on an entity-relationship model (ERM). The Data Definition Language (DDL) 230 is used for defining semantically rich data models, including the data types, associated metadata, and database organization (e.g., columns and tables). As mentioned throughout, according to embodiments the DDL may be extended to further enrich these data models through the use of entities and annotations.
The Query Language (QL) 232 is used to conveniently and efficiently read data based on data models. It is also used to define views within data models. The role of the QL and its relation to the DDL is further illustrated in connection with
The Expression Language (EL) 234 is used to specify calculated fields, default values, constraints, etc. within queries. These calculated fields, default values, and constraints may be specified as well as for elements in data models.
Other elements of the CDS component 130 can include Data Manipulation Language (DML) 236 and a Data Control Language (DCL) 237, both of which may be used to control access to data.
Embodiments as described herein may distinguish between the domain-specific languages DDL, QL, and EL as members of a language family. This approach fosters considerations such as modular design, incremental implementation, and reuse.
Utilization of application level domain language(s) as has been described above, can offer certain benefits. One possible benefit is that the application domain level language can avoid the use of “inefficient” and error-prone code.
Take, for example, the following simple data model describing employee information:
Under some circumstances, it may be desired to write a query statement as follows:
SELECT id, name, homeAddress.zipCode FROM Employee WHERE . . .
Within that sample snippet, path expressions along relationships are used to fetch data from an associated entity. In the simple data model above, the above query statement is equivalent to the following standard SQL statement:
This statement, however, may already be too complex for many application developers. Thus, code patterns similar to that given below, may be used in some pseudo languages:
There are several issues with the code presented immediately above. One issue is the use of an imperative coding style with loops in loops, resulting in 1+n queries being executed or too much data being fetched with a SELECT * statement.
The above code represents only a relatively simple case. A more complex case is found in the following example:
The preceding cases illustrate the importance of increasing expressiveness of the languages used in application development (here, the query language). This allows the intent of application developers to be captured, rather than being buried under substantial volumes of imperative boilerplate coding.
Such expressiveness is in turn is fundamental to having optimizations applied by the query engine (in a manner analogous to functional programming vs. imperative programming). This can affect system characteristics, such as its overall performance and scalability.
Further, a language's ability to allow developers to draft concise and comprehensive code can increase developer productivity. It can also reduce the risk of mistakes and also enhance readability, and thus increase the maintainability of the code.
In order to write concise and readable query statements, it is desirable to enrich the data definitions with sufficient metadata (e.g. about associations, semantic types, etc.) Accordingly, embodiments seek to extend the DDL to define data definitions with sufficient metadata, and seek to extend the QL to leverage such definitions.
DDL and QL are declarative, domain-specific languages providing developers with concise ways to express their models and queries. Certain concepts may originate from entity-relationship modeling (ERM). By adding native support for such concepts in the underlying engine of the database, embodiments avoid the impedance mismatch induced by the translation of conceptual models based on ERM, into implementations based upon a plain relational model. In particular, writing concise and comprehensive code reduces risks of mistakes and increases readability and maintainability.
Moreover, as the concepts of entity-relationship models may lie at the core of many higher-level models, embodiments are able to capture the semantics of other data models (e.g., RDL-based models), and share those semantics with database modelers, and/or ABAP or Java consumers. This reduces fragmentation and the loss of semantics.
In addition, since ERM is also the chosen basis for technologies like OData EDM, embodiments can facilitate mapping entities and views to OData entity sets.
Embodiments may employ a functional approach that is based on standard SQL. In particular, the comprehensive, domain-specific nature of DDL and QL allows capturing the intent of application developers, thus avoiding a lack of clarity regarding that intent which can result from large volumes of imperative boilerplate coding. This follows the principles of functional programming and is important for optimizations.
The functional approach may be inherited from SQL. A SQL SELECT statement declares which sub-set of an overall data model is of interest as projections and selections. It may be left to the query engine to determine optimal execution, including parallelizing as appropriate.
In contrast with imperative object traversal patterns, embodiments can speed up many data retrieval use cases. While many of those retrieval cases are not individually expensive, the cumulative impact of this streamlining can have significant impacts on scalability, as it affects all requests over long periods of time.
Embodiments address some of the complexity offered by standard SQL to typical application developers by raising the basis of SQL from plain relational models, to the level of conceptual models. This is done by providing native support for ERM in the database system. In this manner, the use of SQL may be reestablished for most application developers, not only for those with the SQL expertise for specific optimization tasks.
Embodiments employ associations in DDL. Specifically, the DDL allows definition of data models as entity-relationship models on a semantically rich level that is close to actual conceptual thought. To achieve this over the conventional relational model of standard SQL, certain concepts are captured by the embodiments described herein.
Another concept underlying entities as described herein, involves employing associations 404 on a conceptual level. This approach contrasts with the conventional use of hand-managed foreign keys. Associations define relationships between entities and are specified by adding an element with an association type to a source entity 408 that points to a target entity 410. As shown in the
The association may be complemented by optional further information 412 (e.g., regarding cardinality, which keys to use, additional filter conditions, etc.) up to a complete JOIN condition. According to embodiments the clause-based syntax style of standard SQL may be adopted for specifying the various parameters without sacrificing readability.
In addition, the extended DDL works with custom-defined Types instead of being limited to primitive types only. The extended DDL may also add other enhancements, such as annotations, to enrich the data models with additional metadata, constraints, or calculated fields.
In a second step 504, a database engine is provided in communication with a database utilizing a language describing the relational model. In a third step 506, an application is provided comprising an entity-relationship model (ERM) including a first entity, a second entity, and a relationship between the first entity and the second entity.
In a fourth step 508, a query engine of the application communicates a query to the database engine utilizing a language extension providing the entity and relationship components of the ERM. The language extension may comprise a first structured entity type including a first key and indicating the first entity, a second structured entity type including a second key and indicating the second entity, and a third structured association type reflecting the relationship. The association type may be complemented with further additional information.
In a fifth step 510, the database engine returns a query result to the query engine based upon the language extension.
Some examples of extension of the SQL database language to provide entities and associations of ERMs, are now given below.
For specifying syntax, embodiments may use a derivate of the Backus Naur Form (BNF)family of metasyntax notations used to express a context-free grammar, and which can be relied upon to make a formal description of a computer language. The basic constructs may be summarized as follows:
Syntax for SQL extended to include entities and associations as described herein, may be described as follows:
From DDL perspective, association is a new primitive type that is specified with the type name Association, followed by several parameter clauses to specify requisite metadata. These parameter clauses are as follows:
Cardinality allows specifying the relationship's cardinality in the form of [min . . . max], with max=* denoting infinity and “n” as a shorthand for [0 . . . *]. As a default, if omitted [0 . . . 1] is used as the default cardinality. An example is:
Association[ ] to Address via backlink owner;
To targetEntity specifies the association's target entity. A qualified name is expected, referring to another entity (incl. views). Specifying the target is mandatory—there is no default.
{foreignKeys} allows specifying a combination of alternative key elements in the target entity, to be used to establish the foreign key relationship. Where a key element is in a substructure on the target side, an alias name is to be specified. Further details are provided below regarding associations represented as foreign key relationships.
If omitted, the target entity's designated primary key elements are used. The following are examples:
Another parameter clause is VIA backlink: reverseKeys. For 1:m associations, it is mandatory to specify target elements, which are expected to be a key combination matching the source's primary keys or an association referring to the source entity. An example is:
Association to Address via backlink owner;
Another parameter clause is VIA entity: entityName. For m:m associations, it is mandatory to specify a link table's entity name. That name can either refer to a defined entity or a new entity will be created as follows:
If the data model contains an explicit definition of the link table entity, that entity must adhere to the template shown above. It can in addition add other elements. An example is given below:
The WHERE filterClause allows specifying additional filter conditions that are to be combined with the JOIN conditions. This can be especially relevant in combination with VIA backlink or entity clauses. Depending on the filterCondition this can reduce a base :m relationship to one with a :1 cardinality. An example is given below:
Association to Address[0 . . . 1] via backlink owner where kind=home;
The ON filterClause allows fully specifying an arbitrary JOIN condition, which can be any standard SQL filter expression. Using this option results in the respective association being user-managed. That is, no foreign key elements/fields are created automatically. The developer is expected to explicitly manage the foreign key elements, including filling them with appropriate foreign key values in write scenarios. An example is given below:
Association to Address on owner=this;
Element names showing up in VIA, WHERE, and ON clauses, are resolved within the scope of the target entity's type structure. Siblings can be referred to by prefixing an element with a “.”. Elements from the scope above can be referred to by prefixing an element with “ . . . ”, etc.
In addition, the outer entity's top-level scope can be referred through the pseudo variable “this”, described further below in connection with Pseudo Variables in QL.
According to embodiments, associations are represented as foreign key relationships. In the relational model, associations are mapped to foreign key relationships. The foreign key elements are usually created automatically as described in the following sections. In particular, an element with association type is represented as a nested structure type containing foreign key elements corresponding to the target entity's primary key elements—i.e., having the same names and types. The following are examples of definitions which may be given:
In this example, the association elements would implicitly be defined with a nested structure type containing foreign key elements in the :1 cases (plus additional metadata about the association) as follows:
Following the rules for mapping structured types to the relational model as specified above, the underlying table would be created:
Rules for representing associations in the persistence model may apply, as indicated in the table below:
Consistent with the approach in SQL, no plausibility checks are enforced (e.g., checking whether target key elements specified in {foreignKeys} fulfill the uniqueness requirements). Also, no implicit referential integrity checks are enforced at runtime.
According to embodiments, associations may be in custom-defined types. As associations are special types, they can principally be defined not only for elements in entity definitions, but in type definitions in general. For example, the following definition of the association Amount.currency is valid DDL content:
An actual relationship between entities is established when using the type Amount for an element within an entity definition, as shown in the following:
The code shown above essentially indicates that the entity Employee has two associations—one association is to Address and another association is to Currency within its salary element.
Associations in custom-defined types may only be supported for a simple “to-one” relationship with a foreign key on the source side. That is, associations with via backlink or via entity clauses may not be supported for elements in custom-defined types.
Associations in Query Language (QL) are discussed below.
Querying Associations with :m Cardinality
Resolving associations or compositions with 1:m cardinality using path expressions or nested projection clauses with the flattening operator “.” in place results in flat result sets with duplicate entries for the 1: side, is in line with standard SQL JOINS and the relational model.
As examples, in the following queries, “addresses” refers to an association with “to-many” cardinality [0 . . . *]:
The result sets for the example queries above, are shown below, each with the same value for name repeated/duplicated for each found entry on the :m Address side:
Embodiments also allow the return of ‘Deep’ Result Sets. Specifically, in addition to the standard flattening behavior, the introduction of nested projection clauses and structured result sets principally allows expression of ‘deep’ queries along :m associations. These deep queries return ‘real deep’ result sets having the 1: sides elements on a top level, with nested tables/sets for the :m sides.
For example, the deep query:
SELECT name, addresses {zipCode, city} FROM Employee;
would be expected to return a result set with a nested collection as shown below:
Such deep querying may provide certain benefits. One possible benefit is to allow retrieving larger structures through a single query.
Currently, in the absence of deep querying, such larger structures may frequently be obtained in a brute-force approach, through 1+n queries with n being the number of records returned by a 1: side query. This is detrimental to performance, particularly if such a query spans several levels of to-many associations.
While the other extensions can be realized by translating to standard SQL queries, this one requires adding special support deep within the query engine. The absence of such support may preclude using to-many associations in the non-flattened way. This is discussed further below in the associations of FROM clauses, regarding how association trees can be traversed.
Associations in WHERE Clauses
Associations can arise not only in projection clauses but also in filter conditions in WHERE clauses. Respective comparison operators may be enhanced to support associations, as depicted in the following examples:
Several issues arising within the examples immediately above, may be worthy of note. In connection with:
ad 1,2: A record literal can be passed to a comparison with an association, with elements that match the combination of the foreign keys.
ad 3: Support for Association type in QL includes automatic coercions of typed scalars or string representations thereof to single-key associations.
ad 4: One can also refer to the individual key values using standard path expressions.
ad 5ff: Other SQL comparison operators can be used, such as LIKE, IN, IS NULL, . . .
ad 8: It can be combined with XPath-like filter expressions.
ad 9: It can be combined with compare associations, provided they are assignable.
The above provides just a few examples to give the idea. In general, every condition that is possible with standard SQL expressions shall be possible to do with associations as well, including sub queries with exists and not exists, etc.
Associations in FROM Clauses
Embodiments may also allow associations in FROM clauses. Specifically, host languages may provide support for representing associations as typed variables or elements. This is described below in connection with association types in host languages.
Accordingly, one can traverse along associations, as shown in the following examples (in some pseudo language):
The expression this=<an association> can be used. The comparison this=<an association> can be retrieve an entity by a given association. The pseudo variable this is always an alias for the entity given in the FROM clause. Therefore, the statement above actually resolves to:
SELECT * FROM Address this WHERE this=daniel.homeAddress;
The comparison this=<an association> compares a queried entity with a given association—the association must be of type association to <queried entity>[ . . . ]. This expands to a WHERE clause corresponding to the ON condition resolved from the association. In this case it would actually resolve to:
Embodiments may also allow the use of SELECT from association. Specifically, association-traversal code patterns like the one below are frequently seen:
SELECT * from Address WHERE this=daniel.homeAddress;
An association in general, and a programming language variable with association type support in particular, carries all information about a target record—essentially providing information as to which entity goes with which key. Thus equivalent to the query above, embodiments allow the shorthand below for traversing associations:
SELECT * from daniel.homeAddress;
In general, a query statement of the form SELECT . . . from <someAssociation> expands to:
Here, <targetEntity> signifies the metadata associated with the association corresponding to the target entity specified in the association's declaration using the ON targetEntity clause.
JOINs Declare Ad-Hoc Associations
Embodiments allow JOINs to declare ad-hoc associations. In the case of a missing association, the standard JOIN <target> ON <join condition> clauses as introduced in SQL-92 are still supported, which align with the extensions introduced above, as they naturally introduce associations in an ad-hoc fashion.
For example, in the data model given above, the entity Employee has an association homeAddress, but is lacking a similar association for businessAddress, which can be compensated for using a standard JOIN clause as follows:
The expression may follow the syntax below:
Other syntax is as discussed above in connection with associations in DDL.
JOIN clauses fit easily into the extensions in DDL and QL. JOIN clauses can be interpreted as an ad-hoc definition of missing associations.
In the example immediately above, the association businessAddress is added. This result is recognized if the projection clause of the example above is compared to that of the query applied to the domain model if the association were in place (below):
Embodiments also allow the use of simplified JOIN clauses. In particular, following the observation that JOINs essentially declare ad-hoc associations, embodiments allow JOINs to be declared using the same clauses that are used to declare associations in DDL. Given this, the above example can be written more easily as follows:
An example computer system 710 is illustrated in
Computer system 710 may be coupled via bus 705 to a display 712, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) or liquid crystal display (LCD), for displaying information to a computer user. An input device 711 such as a keyboard and/or mouse is coupled to bus 705 for communicating information and command selections from the user to processor 701. The combination of these components allows the user to communicate with the system. In some systems, bus 705 may be divided into multiple specialized buses.
Computer system 710 also includes a network interface 704 coupled with bus 705. Network interface 704 may provide two-way data communication between computer system 710 and the local network 720. The network interface 704 may be a digital subscriber line (DSL) or a modem to provide data communication connection over a telephone line, for example. Another example of the network interface is a local area network (LAN) card to provide a data communication connection to a compatible LAN. Wireless links are another example. In any such implementation, network interface 704 sends and receives electrical, electromagnetic, or optical signals that carry digital data streams representing various types of information.
Computer system 710 can send and receive information, including messages or other interface actions, through the network interface 704 across a local network 720, an Intranet, or the Internet 730. For a local network, computer system (710 may communicate with a plurality of other computer machines, such as server 715. Accordingly, computer system 710 and server computer systems represented by server 715 may form a cloud computing network, which may be programmed with processes described herein. In the Internet example, software components or services may reside on multiple different computer systems 710 or servers 731-735 across the network. The processes described above may be implemented on one or more servers, for example. A server 731 may transmit actions or messages from one component, through Internet 730, local network 720, and network interface 704 to a component on computer system 710. The software components and processes described above may be implemented on any computer system and send and/or receive information across a network, for example.
The above description illustrates various embodiments of the present invention along with examples of how aspects of the present invention may be implemented. The above examples and embodiments should not be deemed to be the only embodiments, and are presented to illustrate the flexibility and advantages of the present invention as defined by the following claims. Based on the above disclosure and the following claims, other arrangements, embodiments, implementations and equivalents will be evident to those skilled in the art and may be employed without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5761493 | Blakeley et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5836777 | Chen | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5956706 | Carey et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5999908 | Abelow | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6038558 | Powers et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6195709 | Gupner et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6516310 | Paulley | Feb 2003 | B2 |
| 6560598 | Delo et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
| 6567798 | Hollberg et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6631382 | Kouchi et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6732084 | Kabra et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6799184 | Bhatt et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6898603 | Petculescu et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6938041 | Brandow et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6957214 | Silberger | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6996568 | Bedell et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7107497 | McGuire et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7194744 | Srivastava et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7225197 | Lissar et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7290181 | D'Angelo et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7302447 | Dettinger et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7305414 | Manikutty et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7340451 | Sacco | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7380169 | Fossum et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7398530 | Parla et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
| 7421448 | Spork | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7434230 | Harold et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7481368 | Wang et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7505983 | Wildhagen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7523090 | Sundman et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
| 7631012 | Harvey | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7640357 | Kirov et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7653828 | Kostadinov et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7672960 | Anonsen | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7680782 | Chen et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7689612 | Helsen et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7693819 | Stoychev | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7761481 | Gaurav et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7765222 | Styles et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7765224 | Li et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7788241 | Cheng et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7805433 | Dickerman et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7818754 | Morris et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7836070 | Forstmann | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7873605 | Bhattacharyya et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7885840 | Sadiq et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7895226 | Koch et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7912820 | Garden et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7917549 | Arazi | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7937401 | Pasumansky et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7970823 | Moeller et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7975254 | Gilboa | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 7996443 | Nori et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8005850 | Walther et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8010521 | Kissner et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8065323 | Sallakonda et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8069184 | Becker et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8078643 | Mush et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8122009 | Dettinger et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8146103 | Schmidt et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8185508 | Vemuri et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8191081 | Schmidt et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8209280 | Kearney et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8214877 | Grimes et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
| 8219919 | Norring et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8250094 | Skaria et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8255368 | Cox | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8281283 | Speth et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8286916 | Pauly et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8321478 | Fong | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8327260 | Bays et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8347207 | Borgsmidt et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8364300 | Pouyez et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8364724 | Stolte et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8370400 | Brunswig et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8375041 | Webster et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8386916 | LeBrazidec et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8407215 | Sheedy et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8407237 | Kudryavtsev et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8407262 | Hsu et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8407309 | Feldman et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8412673 | Weissenberger et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8417732 | Rapp | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8429176 | Sigurbjornsson et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8473506 | Sedlar et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8478515 | Foucher et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
| 8478850 | Delany et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8484210 | Loh et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8489649 | Yalamanchi et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8504522 | Wu et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8504568 | Chandrasekhara et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8505032 | Craddock et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8510296 | Fan et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8515982 | Hickman et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8805875 | Bawcom et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
| 8849771 | Berg-Sonne | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 9047334 | Cheriton | Jun 2015 | B1 |
| 9182956 | Zalmanovici | Nov 2015 | B2 |
| 20020100014 | Iborra et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138820 | Daly | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20030009649 | Martin et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030135850 | Miloushev et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030140036 | Belowsov | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030145255 | Harty et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20040117759 | Rippert, Jr. et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040122817 | Kaiser | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153435 | Gudbjartsson et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040249856 | Garden et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050004904 | Keamey et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050010565 | Cushing et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050010581 | Doan | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050065958 | Dettinger et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050187952 | Werner | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050256889 | McConnell | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050283459 | MacLennan et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060195460 | Nori et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060195476 | Nori et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060215448 | Ellis et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224634 | Hahn et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235834 | Blakeley et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060242104 | Ellis et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060259912 | Weinrich et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070083572 | Bland et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118501 | Yan | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070136335 | Dionne et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070219976 | Muralidhar et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226203 | Adya | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20080065862 | Hansen et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080071799 | Evans et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080091691 | Tsuji | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080120604 | Morris | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080133530 | Wang et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080222159 | Aranha et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080301168 | Adler et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090240664 | Dinker et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090292730 | Li et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090319546 | Shaik | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100082646 | Meek et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100114935 | Polo-Malouvier et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131568 | Weinberg et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100241637 | Kissner et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100293523 | Ahadian et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100318499 | Arasu et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110154226 | Guertler et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110161371 | Thomson et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110225176 | Siegel et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110231454 | Mack | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110238437 | Zhou et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110302212 | Agrawal et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120005190 | Faerber et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120016901 | Agarwal et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120054142 | Du et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120059802 | Daniello et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120109661 | Lueckhoff | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120130942 | Dipper et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120131392 | Bendig | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120136868 | Hammerschmidt et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120143810 | Berg-Sonne | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120144383 | Mishra et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120215768 | Zellweger | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120239987 | Chow | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120265734 | Perez et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20130110879 | Winternitz et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130111310 | deOliveira et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130117346 | Figus | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130151560 | Zurek | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130159354 | Heinzl et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130166602 | Brunswig et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130246355 | Nelson et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20140149180 | Yaseen et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140245079 | Larson et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140258777 | Cheriton | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140330916 | Xu et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140380266 | Bornhoevd et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| Graphics: Display Method (SAP-SERM); SAP Library—BC Data Modeler; 2004; pp. 1-5. |
| Abovesoft Utilities; www.AboveSoft.com; Sep. 2010; pp. 1-6. |
| Ayers, Lonnie, PMP; SAP BW Data Modeling; SAP-BW Consulting, Inc.; pp. 1-18 Printed Aug. 29, 2013. |
| Heilman, Rich, Hana Product Management, SAP Labs LLC; STEYN, Werner, Customer Solution Adoption, SAP Labs, LLC; SAP HANA SQL Script Basics & Troubleshooting; Oct. 2012; pp. 1-47. |
| Pattern: Fill Transient Attributes of Persistent Nodes; SAP; Jul. 6, 2013; p. 1. |
| Ruby on Rails Guides, “Active Record Validations,” Aug. 8, 2013, downloaded from the Internet at <url>https://web.archive.org/web/20130808005838/http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active—record—validations.html on Aug. 27, 2015, pp. 1-37. |
| Bhargava, “Concurrency control in database systems,” 1999, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 3-16. |
| Paton et al., “Identification of database objects by key,” 2005, Advances in Object-Oriented Database Systems, vol. 334 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 280-285. |
| 7arber et al., “SAP HANA database: data management for modem business applications,” 2011, ACM SIGMOD Record, vol. 40 Issue 4, pp. 45-51. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20150074083 A1 | Mar 2015 | US |
