Skip to content
Branch: master
Find file History
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Permalink
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
..
Failed to load latest commit information.
README.md

README.md

Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) Chapter

In this chapter the notions of Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) are introduced. Graded assignments include one (1) quiz set, for which answers are provided below.

Quiz

The quiz is really short and tests really basic stuff about how basic notions of OLAP work, like rolling-up, drilling-down and so on.

Q1

Consider a Fact table which has the following schema:

Sales(saleID, itemID, color, size, qty, unitPrice)

Additionally consider the following three queries:

Query 1:

select itemID, color, size, sum(qty*unitPrice)
   from Sales
   group by itemID, color, size

Query 2:

 select itemID, color, size, sum(qty*unitPrice)
    from Sales
    group by itemID, size

Query 3:

 select itemID, color, size, sum(qty*unitPrice)
    from Sales
    where size < 10
    group by itemID, size

Now, depending on the order in which these queries are executed, the pair of actions (i.e. P(Q1 -> Q2)) can be viewed as an example of roll-up, drill-down or slicing. Given the following statements about characterizing the nature of the pair operation, which of them is correct?

Q1 Options

In my instance I had the following options to choose from:

  • A: Going from Q1 to Q2 is an example of a roll-up
  • B: Going from Q2 to Q1 is an example of a drill-down
  • B: Going from Q2 to Q1 is an example of a slicing
  • D: Going from Q1 to Q2 is an example of slicing.

Q1 Answer

Now before we jump into the answer let's get our terminology straight.

  • Rolling-up means that we remove information from our query (e.g. a table).
  • Drilling-down means that add information to our query (e.g. a table).
  • Slicing means filtering data of the cube by constraining data across a single dimension (e.g. take all items whose size is less than 10).
  • Dicing is exactly the same as slicing by the constraining of the data happens across multiple dimensions, so instead of a slice we get a chunk or dice of data.

Now since we got that out of the way, looking from our possible options to choose from we see that the only logical solution is the option A which says that going from Q1 -> Q2 we have a roll-up. This is infact correct as we see that the group by clause in Q1 has less elements than the group by in Q2, which based on what we said above is rolling-up.

Q2

Consider a Fact table which has the following schema:

Facts(D1, D2, D3, x)

Additionally consider the following three queries:

Query 1:

select D1, D2, D3, sum(x)
   from Facts
   group by D1, D2, D3

Query 2:

select D1, D2, D3, sum(x)
   from Facts
   group by D1, D2, D3 with cube

Query 3:

select D1, D2, D3, sum(x)
   from Facts
   group by D1, D2, D3 with rollup

Now suppose attributes D1, D2 and D3 have n1, n2 and n3 different values respectively; additionally assume that each possible combination of values appears at least once in table Facts. The number of tuples in the result of each of the three queries above can be specified as an arithmetic formula involving n1, n2, and n3.

Given the tuples below T{1..4}(a, b, c, d, e, f) select the that satisfies when n1=a, n2=b and n3=c then the query result size of Q1, Q2 and Q3 are equal to d, e and f respectively.

Hint: it may be helpful to first write formulates describing how d, e and f relate to a, b and c respectively and then pick the tuple which fits the bill.

Q2 Options

In my instance I had the following options to choose from:

  • A: (4, 7, 3, 84, 87, 117)
  • B: (5, 4, 3, 60, 120, 86)
  • C: (4, 7, 3, 84, 160, 84)
  • D: (5, 4, 3, 60, 64, 80)

Q2 Answer

Now as we are advised, and for clarifications' sake let's try to find those inequalities first! Starting by the easiest one, which is Query 1.

Now, remember that when you perform a group by operation on a single column C it puts those values from column C that have the same value into one group.

In our case we have to perform a group by operation on multiple columns (say columns: C1..Cn), it works by putting the the values from all columns in the group by clause that have the same value into one group. That distinction is important, because it let's put a bound to result.

Let's examine that bound, in the case of grouping by on one attribute the absolute minimum is the number of distinct elements on that column. While on the case of multiple columns the absolute maximum is increased to discrete combinations of the attributes (i.e. each D1 with D2 and each of those with each of D3). So, in essence in the plain group by case we have an equality on the number of tuples of the result, which is shown below,

d <= n1*n2*n3

This is evident as all of the provided tuples have their d values equal to a*b*c, specifically:

  1. 4*7*3 = 28*3 = 84

  2. 5*4*3 = 20*3 = 60

  3. 4*7*3 = 28*3 = 84

  4. 5*4*3 = 20*3 = 60

Moving on let's examine the group by version with the cube that's shown in Query 3. Recall from the lectures that cube just uses every combination of attributes across every dimension. In the cases that we want to do slicing/diving we make use of the null construct.

Since we just have null value in all of the available dimensions it can be viewed as an extra value in all of our attributes, so the inequality is the following:

e <= (n1+1)*(n2+1)*(n3+1)

Now let's finally talk about the group by version with rolling-up that's shown in Query 3. Recall from the OLAP demo lecture that rolling-up produces tuples the combinations of attributes including those that have null (which means that the value isn't taken into account for the specialization). A concrete example would be the following:

A B C
a1 b1 c1
a1 b1 null
a1 null null

This scheme happens for all of the value combinations in the table, notice though the absence of a null value for the A column. This is intentional as in roll-up there is only one one column that has null for every column which is the the group that contains everything from A, B and C.

Now, we can easily see an emerging pattern; the easiest way to calculate this is to calculate the regular group by number of tuples and add to that the number of extra tuples which are specifically calculated during the roll-up operation. Their number is given our by the following formula:

r <= n1*(n2+1) + 1 

This essentially adds the null attribute to the distinct pairs we can have for D2 and D3 while adding one to take into account the single triple that has null values in D1, D2 and D3.

Hence the inequality that must hold is the following:

f <= d + r

Where d is the result of the regular group by as shown previously and r the inequality we just calculated.

Using these inequalities we can easily see that the correct answer is:

d = a*b*c = 5*4*3 = 60
e = (a+1)*(b+1)*(c+1) = 6*5*4 = 120
f = d + r = d + a*(b+1) + 1 = 60 + 5*5 + 1 = 60 + 26 = 86

Thus the correct answer is option B.

You can’t perform that action at this time.