TOWARDS USER AND Click to DEPENDENT QUERYedit Master subtitle style RANKING FOR WEB DATABASES

Geethanjali College Of Engineering and Technology Cheeryal( V), Keesara( M), Ranga Reddy District.
Internal Guide Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Project Team Members O.SRAVANTHI D.DIVYAJA A.K.KUNAL 09R11A0541 09R11A0518 09R11A0501

INTRODUCTION
In this paper, we proposed a user- and query-dependent solution for ranking query results for Web databases.

EXISTING SYSTEM

One of the problems in this context is ranking the results of a query. Earlier approaches for addressing this problem have used frequencies of database values, query logs, and user profiles. A common in thread in most of these approaches is that ranking is done in a user- and/or query-independent manner.

PROPOSED SYSTEM

We present a ranking model, based on two complementary notions of user and query similarity, to derive a ranking function for a given user query.

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS

VS.NET 2008, C# SQL SERVER 2005 WINDOWS XP

HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS

SYSTEM HARD DISK RAM :

: PENTIUM IV 2.4 GHz : 80GB 1GB

MODULES
1. 2. 3. 4.

ADMIN LOGIN QUERY-SIMILARITY USER-SIMILARITY RANKING PROCESS

ADMIN LOGIN

In this module Admin maintained various products of bike details with several databases. The databases have bike cost, color, details, and performance of bike details like gear, engine, etc., and also has details like alloys, electric start, etc.,

QUERY-SIMILARITY

When customer login and search the bike details with specific price. Then bike details to be appeared with the customer to desire/wish. Details are displayed from different types of databases, using join query. Then, he give feedback to that product.

USER-SIMILARITY

If he expected more details for various product he go to search via user-similarity. It shows more details. Then he takes decision and once again search he wish. Then give another feedback to that product.

RANKING PROCESS

If customer, gave the feedback to all products. Then, admin count the passion by customer. Then, he ranking the overall products.

CONCLUSION

We formally defined the similarity models (user, query and combined)and presented experimental results to corroborate our analysis. We demonstrated the practicality of our implementation for real-life databases. Further, we discussed the problem of establishing a workload, and presented a learning method for inferring individual ranking functions.

LITERATURE SURVEY

Y. Rui, T. S. Huang, and S. Mehrotra. Content-based image retrieval with relevance feedback in mars. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pages 815 818, 1997. S. Agrawal, S. Chaudhuri, G. Das, and A. Gionis. Automated ranking of database query results. In CIDR, 2003. S. Amer-Yahia, A. Galland, J. Stoyanovich, and C. Yu. From del.icio.us to x.qui.site: recommendations in social tagging sites. In SIGMOD Conference, pages 13231326, 2008. R. Baeza-Yates and B. Ribeiro-Neto. Modern Information Retrieval. ACM Press, 1999. M. Balabanovic and Y. Shoham. Content-based collaborative recommendation. ACM Communications, 40(3):6672, 1997. J. Basilico and T. Hofmann. A joint framework for collaborative and content filtering. In SIGIR, pages 550 551, 2004.

K N A TH U YO