Fuzzing Graph Database Applications with Graph Transformations
Read the paper · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94706-3_7
What this paper does with SQLancer
How it was classified
uses infrastructure — no
SQLancer is cited as related work; no reuse of its code, generator or workload is described.
extends technique — no
No SQLancer technique is extended; the citation is background.
compares with — no
No empirical comparison against SQLancer or one of its oracles is reported.
describes as state of the art — no
The text does not describe SQLancer as the state of the art.
SQLancer publications it cites (2)
Bibliography entries that resolved to a SQLancer publication, or to a paper by one of the project's authors. A sentence citing one of these numbers is a reference to SQLancer even when it never writes the name.
| # | Entry | Matched as |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | Alvaro, P., Rigger, M.: Automatically testing database systems: DBMS testing with test oracles, transaction history, and fuzzing. ACM Queue 21(6), 128–135 (2024) | project authored |
| 11 | Angles, R., et al.: PG-schema: schemas for property graphs. Angles, R., et al.: PG-keys: keys for property graphs. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 2423–2436. ACM (2021) [13] ArangoDB: ArangoDB. https:// arangodb. com/. Vis... | sqlancer publication · QPG |
Every place it refers to SQLancer (7)
7 sentences, each stored verbatim from the extracted text with where it was found and how. “Citation marker” means the sentence names no tool at all and was reached through a reference number that resolved to a SQLancer publication.
| Id | Sentence | Found by | Where |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | In this work, we target native GDBMSs, represented by the popular Neo4j database, and multimodel ones, represented by JanusGraph, one of the few GDBMSs equipped with not only graph schema, but also advanced integrity constraint mechanisms [ 11]. |
citation marker |
1 Introduction page 2 |
| M2 | These mutations, informed by the recent PG-Schema [ 11] language, contrast grammar-based fuzzers—which strictly enforce grammatical constraints— by intentionally generating graph instances that are syntactically valid, according to the schema types, but that violate key and cardinality constraints. |
citation marker |
1 Introduction page 3 |
| M3 | For the empirical evaluation, we examined open-source applications built on top of Neo4j [ 57], one of the most popular graph databases [ 73], and JanusGraph [ 46], one of the few graph databases to enforce schema constraints [ 11], and compiled a custom benchmark suite for testing database-backed applications. |
citation marker |
1 Introduction page 3 |
| M4 | We consider these systems, as Neo4j is one of the most popular [ 73]G D B M S s and JanusGraph is one of the few that can handle not only a priori schema constraints but also rich cardinality ones, as surveyed in [ 11]. |
citation marker |
3 Preliminaries page 6 |
| M5 | Among existing GDBMSs, JanusGraph provides one of the most comprehensive supports for cardinality constraints [ 11]. |
citation marker |
3 Preliminaries page 7 |
| M6 | PGFuzz uses graph schema-aware transformations and supports a core fragment of the recent PG-Schema and PG-Keys formalisms, which inform the design of the novel GQL graph query standard [ 11,12]. |
citation marker |
4.3 Schema-Aware Graph Transformations page 10 |
| M7 | Several recent works focus on testing database man-agement systems [ 9,17,45] and graph databases [ 47,49,83]. |
citation marker project authored |
6 Related Work page 17 |