skip to main content
10.1145/2463676.2465333acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Generalized scale independence through incremental precomputation

Published:22 June 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Developers of rapidly growing applications must be able to anticipate potential scalability problems before they cause performance issues in production environments. A new type of data independence, called scale independence, seeks to address this challenge by guaranteeing a bounded amount of work is required to execute all queries in an application, independent of the size of the underlying data. While optimization strategies have been developed to provide these guarantees for the class of queries that are scale-independent when executed using simple indexes, there are important queries for which such techniques are insufficient.

Executing these more complex queries scale-independently requires precomputation using incrementally-maintained materialized views. However, since this precomputation effectively shifts some of the query processing burden from execution time to insertion time, a scale-independent system must be careful to ensure that storage and maintenance costs do not threaten scalability. In this paper, we describe a scale-independent view selection and maintenance system, which uses novel static analysis techniques that ensure that created views do not themselves become scaling bottlenecks. Finally, we present an empirical analysis that includes all the queries from the TPC-W benchmark and validates our implementation's ability to maintain nearly constant high-quantile query and update latency even as an application scales to hundreds of machines.

References

  1. P. Agrawal et al. Asynchronous view maintenance for vlsd databases. In SIGMOD, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Agrawal, S. Chaudhuri, and V. R. Narasayya. Automated selection of materialized views and indexes in sql databases. In VLDB, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Y. Ahmad, O. Kennedy, et al. Dbtoaster: higher-order delta processing for dynamic, frequently fresh views. Proc. VLDB Endow., 5(10), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Armbrust, K. Curtis, T. Kraska, A. Fox, M. J. Franklin, and D. A. Patterson. PIQL: Success-tolerant query processing in the cloud. PVLDB, 5(3), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Armbrust et al. Scads: Scale-independent storage for social computing applications. In CIDR, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. A. Blakeley, P.-Å. Larson, and F. W. Tompa. Efficiently updating materialized views. In SIGMOD, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving production rules for incremental view maintenance. In VLDB, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Chaabouni et al. The point-range tree: a data structure for indexing intervals. In Proc. of ACM CSC, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. L. S. Colby et al. Algorithms for deferred view maintenance. SIGMOD Rec., 25(2), 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. E. Cunha et al. Analyzing the dynamic evolution of hashtags on twitter: a language-based approach. In Workshop on Languages in Social Media, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. G. DeCandia et al. Dynamo: amazon's highly available key-value store. SIGOPS, 41, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Gray, A. Bosworth, A. Layman, D. Reichart, and H. Pirahesh. Data cube: A relational aggregation operator generalizing group-by, cross-tab, and sub-totals. 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. A. Gupta, D. Katiyar, and I. S. Mumick. Counting solutions to the view maintenance problem. In Workshop on Deductive Databases, JICSLP, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. H. Gupta and I. Mumick. Selection of views to materialize in a data warehouse. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 17(1), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Kincaid. Zuckerberg: Online sharing is growing at an exponential rate. http://tinyurl.com/cskurl3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. C. Koch. Incremental query evaluation in a ring of databases. In PODS, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Y. Kotidis et al. Dynamat: a dynamic view management system for data warehouses. SIGMOD Rec., 28(2), 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. W. Labio et al. Performance issues in incremental warehouse maintenance. In VLDB, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. X. Long and T. Suel. Three-level caching for efficient query processing in large web search engines. In WWW, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. Luo et al. Locking protocols for materialized aggregate join views. In VLDB, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. H. Mistry, P. Roy, S. Sudarshan, and K. Ramamritham. Materialized view selection and maintenance using multi-query optimization. SIGMOD Rec., 30(2), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. E. J. Newman. Power laws, pareto distributions and zipf's law. Contemporary Physics, 46, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. T. Özsu and P. Valduriez. Principles of distributed database systems (2nd ed.). 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. D. Quass and J. Widom. On-line warehouse view maintenance. In SIGMOD, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. K. Salem et al. How to roll a join: asynchronous incremental view maintenance. SIGMOD Rec., 29(2), 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. B. Trushkowsky et al. The scads director: scaling a distributed storage system under stringent performance requirements. In FAST, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. P. Valduriez. Join indices. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 12(2), 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. K. Weil. Measuring tweets. http://blog.twitter.com/2010/02/measuring-tweets.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Generalized scale independence through incremental precomputation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGMOD '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
      June 2013
      1322 pages
      ISBN:9781450320375
      DOI:10.1145/2463676

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 June 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGMOD '13 Paper Acceptance Rate76of372submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader