Oooo Oo#Oo Oteoo
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
h 14P6/175 f i ' PRACE co PAN • cc PAS REPORTS Oooo2 1 5 5 b ^ “ " o o o « o OOOM oo#oo 00* 0« 00990 00999 Witold Lipski omooo 09009 Variaits of file organization for a family 09099 of threo sets oteoo 09909 09990 _______ t75 1974 OOOO WARSZAWA O O O w CENTRUM OBLICZENIOWE POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK COMPUTATION CENTRE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 00*0 WARSAW PKIN, P. O. Box 2 2, POLAND Witold Lipski VARIANTS OP PILE ORGANIZATION POR A PA1CELY OP THREE SETS 175 Warsaw 1575 Komitat Redakcyjny A. Blikle (przewodniczący), J. Lipski (sekretarz), L. Łukaszewicz, R. Marczyński, Ł. Mardoń, A. Mazurkiewicz, Z. Pawlak, Z. Szoda (zastępca przewodniczącego), M. Warmia Pracę zgłosił Zdzisław Pawlak Mailing adirees« Witold Lipski, Jr ul. Afrykańska 14P 14, 03-946 Warszawa Ob)ic o PA. b Ina. Printed as a nanuscript Ba prawach rękopisu Bakład 700 egz. Ark. wyd. 0,75 ark. druk. 1,00. Papier offset. kl. XH, 70 g, 70 x 100. Oddano do druku w październiku 1974 r. W. D. B. Zam. nr 733/O 1 Abstract . CojepxaHHe • Streszczenie In the paper the following combinatorial problem related to file organization is considered: given three sets find an arranging of X such that each is a segment (cf.t3l). Certain theorems concerning a file organization introduced by Ghosh [21, which are connected with the above problem, are also proved. BapHaHTH opraHH3anHH MHOsceciBa Aawmtx b ciyqae ceMeRciBa Tpex u b o z s c t b B paCoie paccuaipHBaeTca npoójtewa KOMÓHHaiopHKH, cbs- 3aHHaa c opraHH3anne$ MHOxeciBa flammx, a mieHHo: no AaHiaai ipeii MBoxecTBau M ^ Mg, Mg » 1 BaflTH TaKoe ynopaflO^ieHHe MHoatecTBa X, ^to6bi Ka^woe mbokoctbo M npe,ncTaBJiajio codofi 0ipe3OK /cpaBBH c [3J /. ,D,0Ka3HBaeTCB TaKJKe aeKOTopaa ieo- peiia, cBS3aHKaa c BmneyKa3aHHoM npoCjreMOfi, a HMeBHO leopeua o opraHH33JJHBj npeAJioseHBoft romeu [2] • Warianty organizacji zbioru danych dla rodziny trzech zbiorów W artykule rozważany jest następujący problem kombinato- ryczny związany z organizacją zbioru danych: mając dane trzy zbiory M^Mg.MjSX znaleźć takie uporządkowanie zbioru X, by każdy zbiór był odcinkiem (por. [3]) . Udowodnione są również pewne twierdzenia związane z powyższym problemem doty czące organizacji zaproponowanej przez Ghosha [23. §0. Introduction Let X be the set of objects (records) of an information storage and retrieval system (see [7]) and let rifl£lP(X) be a family of subsets of X. We want to define a partial function Ss X —*X in such a way that each M e'TTl is a segment, i.e. M = [x,S(x),...,S|M|-1(x)J for an x£ X. By imposing certain restriction on S we define different classes of admissibility, in particular the classes of admissible, linear, cyclic, acyclic families of subsets of X, denoted by Adm(X), JL(X), ^( X ) , Ji(X) respectively (cf. ( 3,4,5]). Pile organizations based on this theory were considered , in the linear case, by Ghosh [1] and, in the general case, by Lipski and Karek C5.6] and Lipski [3,4]. These file organiza tions will be referred to as one-dimen3ional (1D), as opposed % " to two-dimensional (2D) organization proposed recently by Ghosh [2], as an extension of [1]. In the present paper only the case '7Y1 = is dealt with. We give, in §1, necessary and.sufficient conditions for to belong to different-classes of admissibility. Then, in §2, 2D organizations are considered. For each class of admissibility, its 2D analogon is defined, and certain theorems are proved, which extend a result of Ghosh [2, Theorem 4]. For definitions and notation the reader is referred to C3l, 0 3 » or [5]. - 6 - §1. One-Dinensional Organizations In this section we give necessary and sufficient conditions for a family £ TP(X) to be in certain classes of admissibility. We shall always assume that Mgu Mj = X and denote = Xs-For the reasons which are explained in details in [j] it is sufficient to consider (in proofs) on ly the families *^2» satisfying the following two conditions: (i) Each component of 'lift either consists of one element or is empty. (ii) The set of non-empty components of 9?7 is maximal possible for a class of admissibility under considera tion (for other families we obtain appropriate f-graphs by contraction). 7/e shall call such families basic. Let us recall (cf. Q6]) 9 that for a given Iffl^TP (X), two f-graphs ^X,S^> and <X,S^> are essentially different iff there is no bisection <j>:X — *■ X satisfying the following two conditions: (i) (\^/ x,y£ X ) ( <Cx,y> e S1 <---- <<p(x) ,<p(y)> £ S 2 ), i.e. cp is an isomorphism between <X,S/)> and <X,S2>. (ii) M 6 7TZ) cf(M) 6 TT t , i.e. ^ is an automorphism of . Theorem 1.1. ( Lip ski and Uarek 16]) Each family { , Mj} is admissible. The unique four essentially different f-graphs realizing the admissibility of a basic family are depicted in Fig. 1. I - 7 - Fig. 1. The f-graphs realizing the admissibility of {U^.Ug.M Theorem 1.2. A family {M^MgjM^} is acyclic iff IjnMjrtllj = ? » = 0 (1) The uni e three essentially different f-graphs realizing the acyclicity of a basic family are depicted in Fig. 2. Proof: If (1) does not hold then there exist 6 Hj n Mg o , Xg £ EjoMjaMj, Xje M1 a Mgn toy The contrac tion {•*i»M2>M3} ^ XltX2fX^ = £{x2'x3 M x1»x3l‘£x1>x2?} is evidently non-acyclic, hence {M^.Mg.Mj} is also non-acyclic ( contraction preserves the acyclicity, cf. C 3l) • The proof of the uniqueness is left to the reader. I Let us notice that (1) is equivalent to Mg a M ^ C v M/| a Kj 9 Mg v M^ n M2 ^ M^ ( 1 ) hence a family of three sets is acyclic iff one of them contains the intersection of the two others. - 8 - Pig. 2. The f-graphs realizing the acyclicity of {1L,,Mg, . Theorem 1.3. A family {M^Mg.Mj} is cyclic iff at least one of the following two conditions is satisfied: llj A MgO = 0 (2) M^AMgAMj = 0vM^rtMgAMj = 0vM^AMgAMj = 0 (3) There are two non-isomorphic types of basic families, and two essentially different f-graphs (one for each type) realizing the cyclicity of a basic family, see Fig. 3* Proof: If neither (2) nor (3) holds then there exist X q C KL, ^ Mg a , x>| f a Mg a ^ ^1 ^ ^ a M ^ , £ IL| ^ Mg a M ^ . The contraction {1L, ,Mg,M?}| £XqjXi ,Xg,Xj} = ’fx0 ,x2 ^ ' ^ O » ^ is evidently non-cyclic, hence {u^,Mg,MjJ is also non-cyclic (contraction preserves the cyclicity, cf. [3])> And so at least one of the conditions (2), (3~) must be satisfied if fit],Mg,Mj} is cyclic. The easy proof of the uniqueness is omitted. 8 - 9 - II Fig. 3. The f-graphs realizing the cyclicity of {iL^Mg.Mj}. Let us notice that (3) is equivalent to M1cM2 uM? v M2SM1uM3 v M ^ s W ^ u M g , hence a family of three sets is cyclic iff either its intersec tion is empty or a certain set is contained in the union of the two others. Theorem 2.4. A family [M^.Mg.Mj} is linear iff at least one of the three conditions is satisfied: M1C M 2 v Mg<= Mj v il^Mj v MgCiC, v MjCMg v MJ C M 1 (*) M1 n Mg = 0 V Mg/-» Mj = 0 v M? n M1 = 0 (5) Mg S M1 £ Mg u v n M? £ Mg S M_1 u M ^ v M1r>M2cMJcM1uM2 (6) There are three non-isomorphic basic families and four essen tially different f-graphs (two for the case (4)) realizing the linearity of a basic family, see Fig. 4. Proof: If our family is linear, then it is acyclic and cyclic. We obtain the conditions (4), (5), (6) by combining (1) with (2), (3) • The uniqueness is easy. I In other words a family of three sets is linear iff one of them is contained in another one, or two of them are disjoint, Fig. 4. The f-graphs realizing the linearity of or one of them contains the intersection of the two others and. is contained in their union. By Theorem 2.4. a family of three sets is linear iff it is cyclic and acyclic, though for arbitrary families it is not true (see [>]). §2. Two-Dimensional Organizations The idea of 2D organization is due to Ghosh [2]. In this section we give a definition of 2D organization which is more general than that in [2]. To each class of admissibility ^ (X) p its 2D analogon X (X) will be defined. The organization of Ghosh [2"] corresponds to the class <£2(x). Let rKTl<i'f(X) * let n be a positive integer and let f: X — » {1,2,...,n] be a function. We define: - 11 - t ± 7 ï ï <— » ( ^ M é O T ' l ) (N^/x.y eu ) ( x * y .— » f (x) * f (y) ) (f.L/Wl corresponds to the disjoint incidence domains condi tion in [2]s if x,y are in the same secondary array, i.e. f(x) = f(y), then there is no lliTT^ with x,yf ll), We define a family f (7n)£<P({l ,2,... ,n}) as follows: f ('W.) = [f(M): Mé-'iî?.}, where f(M) = ff(x) : xfljj* Definition 2.1. Let rïf l Ç. V(X) and let X ( x ) be a class of admissibility. TTC 6 $ 2(x) iff there is a positive integer n and a function f: X — > {l,2,...,n} such that f -L and f (7Tt)€ ÎJC({i ,2,..