Recently, the iterative approach named linear tabling has received considerable attention because of its simplicity, ease of implementation, and good space efficiency. Linear tabling is a framework from which different methods can be derived based on the strategies used in handling looping subgoals. One decision concerns when answers are consumed and returned. This paper describes two strategies, namely, lazy and eager strategies, and compares them both qualitatively and quantitatively. The results indicate that, while the lazy strategy has good locality and is well suited for finding all solutions, the eager strategy is comparable in speed with the lazy strategy and is well suited for programs with cuts. Linear tabling relies on depth-first iterative deepening rather than suspension to compute fixpoints. Each cluster of inter-dependent subgoals as represented by a top-most looping subgoal is iteratively evaluated until no subgoal in it can produce any new answers. Naive re-evaluation of all looping subgoals, albeit simple, may be computationally unacceptable. In this paper, we also introduce semi-naive optimization, an effective technique employed in bottom-up evaluation of logic programs to avoid redundant joins of answers, into linear tabling. We give the conditions for the technique to be safe (i.e. sound and complete) and propose an optimization technique called early answer promotion to enhance its effectiveness. Benchmarking in B-Prolog demonstrates that with this optimization linear tabling compares favorably well in speed with the state-of-the-art implementation of SLG.
Tabled evaluations ensure termination of logic programs with finite models by keeping track of which subgoals have been called. Given several variant subgoals in an evaluation, only the first one encountered will use program clause resolution; the rest uses answer resolution. This use of answer resolution prevents infinite looping which happens in SLD. Given the asynchronicity of answer generation and answer return, tabling systems face an important scheduling choice not present in traditional top-down evaluation: How does the order of returning answers to consuming subgoals affect program efficiency. Tabling is an implementation technique that improves the declarativeness and expressiveness of Prolog by reusing answers to subgoals. During tabled execution, several decisions have to be made. These are determined by the scheduling strategy. Whereas a strategy can achieve very good performance for certain applications, for others it might add overheads and even lead to unacceptable inefficiency. The ability of using multiple strategies within the same evaluation can be a means of achieving the best possible performance. In this work, we present how the YapTab system was designed to support dynamic mixed-strategy evaluation of the two most successful tabling scheduling strategies: batched scheduling and local scheduling.