1
Soft functional dependencies
2
============================
4
Functional dependencies are a concept well described in relational theory,
5
particularly in the definition of normalization and "normal forms". Wikipedia
6
has a nice definition of a functional dependency [1]:
8
In a given table, an attribute Y is said to have a functional dependency
9
on a set of attributes X (written X -> Y) if and only if each X value is
10
associated with precisely one Y value. For example, in an "Employee"
11
table that includes the attributes "Employee ID" and "Employee Date of
12
Birth", the functional dependency
14
{Employee ID} -> {Employee Date of Birth}
16
would hold. It follows from the previous two sentences that each
17
{Employee ID} is associated with precisely one {Employee Date of Birth}.
19
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_dependency
21
In practical terms, functional dependencies mean that a value in one column
22
determines values in some other column. Consider for example this trivial
23
table with two integer columns:
25
CREATE TABLE t (a INT, b INT)
26
AS SELECT i, i/10 FROM generate_series(1,100000) s(i);
28
Clearly, knowledge of the value in column 'a' is sufficient to determine the
29
value in column 'b', as it's simply (a/10). A more practical example may be
30
addresses, where the knowledge of a ZIP code (usually) determines city. Larger
31
cities may have multiple ZIP codes, so the dependency can't be reversed.
33
Many datasets might be normalized not to contain such dependencies, but often
34
it's not practical for various reasons. In some cases, it's actually a conscious
35
design choice to model the dataset in a denormalized way, either because of
36
performance or to make querying easier.
42
Real-world data sets often contain data errors, either because of data entry
43
mistakes (user mistyping the ZIP code) or perhaps issues in generating the
44
data (e.g. a ZIP code mistakenly assigned to two cities in different states).
46
A strict implementation would either ignore dependencies in such cases,
47
rendering the approach mostly useless even for slightly noisy data sets, or
48
result in sudden changes in behavior depending on minor differences between
49
samples provided to ANALYZE.
51
For this reason, extended statistics implement "soft" functional dependencies,
52
associating each functional dependency with a degree of validity (a number
53
between 0 and 1). This degree is then used to combine selectivities in a
57
Mining dependencies (ANALYZE)
58
-----------------------------
60
The current algorithm is fairly simple - generate all possible functional
61
dependencies, and for each one count the number of rows consistent with it.
62
Then use the fraction of rows (supporting/total) as the degree.
64
To count the rows consistent with the dependency (a => b):
66
(a) Sort the data lexicographically, i.e. first by 'a' then 'b'.
68
(b) For each group of rows with the same 'a' value, count the number of
69
distinct values in 'b'.
71
(c) If there's a single distinct value in 'b', the rows are consistent with
72
the functional dependency, otherwise they contradict it.
75
Clause reduction (planner/optimizer)
76
------------------------------------
78
Applying the functional dependencies is fairly simple: given a list of
79
equality clauses, we compute selectivities of each clause and then use the
80
degree to combine them using this formula
82
P(a=?,b=?) = P(a=?) * (d + (1-d) * P(b=?))
84
Where 'd' is the degree of functional dependency (a => b).
86
With more than two equality clauses, this process happens recursively. For
87
example for (a,b,c) we first use (a,b => c) to break the computation into
89
P(a=?,b=?,c=?) = P(a=?,b=?) * (e + (1-e) * P(c=?))
91
where 'e' is the degree of functional dependency (a,b => c); then we can
92
apply (a=>b) the same way on P(a=?,b=?).
95
Consistency of clauses
96
----------------------
98
Functional dependencies only express general dependencies between columns,
99
without referencing particular values. This assumes that the equality clauses
100
are in fact consistent with the functional dependency, i.e. that given a
101
dependency (a=>b), the value in (b=?) clause is the value determined by (a=?).
102
If that's not the case, the clauses are "inconsistent" with the functional
103
dependency and the result will be over-estimation.
105
This may happen, for example, when using conditions on the ZIP code and city
106
name with mismatching values (ZIP code for a different city), etc. In such a
107
case, the result set will be empty, but we'll estimate the selectivity using
108
the ZIP code condition.
110
In this case, the default estimation based on AVIA principle happens to work
111
better, but mostly by chance.
113
This issue is the price for the simplicity of functional dependencies. If the
114
application frequently constructs queries with clauses inconsistent with
115
functional dependencies present in the data, the best solution is not to
116
use functional dependencies, but one of the more complex types of statistics.