skip to main content
article
Free Access

Implications of certain assumptions in database performance evauation

Published:03 June 1984Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The assumptions of uniformity and independence of attribute values in a file, uniformity of queries, constant number of records per block, and random placement of qualifying records among the blocks of a file are frequently used in database performance evaluation studies. In this paper we show that these assumptions often result in predicting only an upper bound of the expected system cost. We then discuss the implications of nonrandom placement, nonuniformity, and dependencies of attribute values on database design and database performance evaluation.

References

  1. 1 AHO, A., AND ULLMAN, J. Optimal partial match retrieval when fields are independently specified. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4, 2 (June 1979), 168-179. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2 ANDERSON, H.D., AND BERRh, P.B. Minimum cost selection of secondary indexes for formated files. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 2, 1 (Mar. 1977), 68-90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3 ASTRAHAN, M.M., KIM, W., AND SCHKOLNICK, M. Evaluation of the System R access path selection mechanism. In Proceedings IFIP, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4 BERNSTEIN, P.A., AND CHIC, D.W. Using semijoins to solve relational queries. J. A CM 28, 1 (Jan. 1981), 25-40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5 CARDENAS, A.F. Analysis and performance of inverted database structures. Commun. ACM 18, 5 (May 1975), 253-263. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6 CHRISTODOULAKIS, S. Estimating selectivities in databases. Ph.D. dissertation; Rep. CSRG No. 136, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7 CHRISTODOULAKIS, S. Estimating record selectivities, inf. Syst. 8, 2 (1983), 105-115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8 CHRISTODOULAKIS, S. Estimating block transfers and join sizes. In Proceedings SIGMOD 1983 Conference, ACM, New York, 40-54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9 CHRISTODOULAKIS, S. Estimating block selectivities. Inf. Syst. 9, 1 (1984).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. 10 CHRISTODOULAKIS, S., AND FALOUTSOS, C. Performance considerations for a message file server. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (Mar. 1984}.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 11 DEMOLOMBE, R. Estimation of the number of tuples satisfying a query expressed in relational algebra. IEEE 1980, 55-63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12 Engineers' Salaries, 1979 Report on. Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13 GOODMAN, N,, BERNSTEIN, P.A., WONG, E., REEVE, C.L., AND ROTHNIE, J.B. Query processing in SDD-I: A system for distributed databases. Tech. Rep., Computer Corporation of America, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14 HAMMER, M., AND NIAMIR, B. A heuristic approach to attribute partitioning. In Proceedings ACM SIGMOD 1979, ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15 JAYNES, E.T. Where do we stand on maximum entropy? In The Maximum Entropy Formalism, Levine and Tribus, Eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1979, 15-118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16 KERSCHBERG, L., TING, P.D., AND YAO, S.B. Optimal distributed query processing. Tech. Rep., Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, N.J., 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17 KIN~, W.F. On the selection of indices for a file. IBM Res. Rep. RJ-1341{20850), IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, Calif., 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18 KNUTH, D.E. The Art o/Computer Programming, vol. 3: Sorting and Searching. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1973. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19 LUM, V.Y., SENCO, M,E., WANG, C.P., AND LING, H. A cost oriented algorithm for data set allocation in storage hierarchies. Commun. ACM 18, 6 (June 1975). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 20 MARSHALL, A., AND OLKIN, i. Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and its Applications. Academic Press, New York, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 21 NIEVERGELT, J., AND REINGOLD, E.M. Binary search trees of bounded balance. SIAM J. Comput. 2, 1 (1973), 33-43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. 22 OZKARAHAN, E.A., SCHUSTER, S.A., AND SEVCIK, K.C. Peformance evaluation of a relational associative processor. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 2, 2 (June 1977), 175-196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 23 ROTHNIE, J., AND LOZANO, J. Attribute based file organization in a paged memory environment. Commun. ACM 17, 2 (Feb. 1974), 63-69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 24 SALTON, G. Dynamic Information and Library Processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1975. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 25 SCHKOLNICK, M. The optimal selection of secondary indices for flies. Inf. Syst. t, 141-146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 26 SCHKOLNICK, M. A survey of physical database design methodology and techniques. In Proceedings Conference on Very Large Data Bases 1978, 474-487.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27 SELINGER, P.G., ASTRAHAN, M.M., CHAMBERLIN, D.D., LORIE, R.A., AND PRICE, T.G. Access path selection in a relational database management system. In Proceedings ACM SIGMOD 1979, ACM, New York, 23-34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. 28 SEVCIK, K.C. Database system performance prediction using an analytic model. In Proceedings Conference on Very Large Data Bases 1981, 182-198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 29 TEOREY, T., AND FRY, J. Design of Database Structures. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 30 Tou, J.T., AND GONZALEZ, R.C. Pattern Recognition Principles. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 31 TSlCHmTZlS, D., AND CHRISTODOULAKIS, S. Message files. ACM Trans. Office Inf. Syst. I, 1 (Jan. 1983), 88-98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 32 WIEDERHOLD, G. Database Design. McGraw Hill, New York, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 33 WONG, C.K. Minimizing expected head movement in a one-dimensional mass storage systems. Comput. Surv. 12 (1980), 167-178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. 34 WONG, C.K., AND YUE, P.C. A majorization theorem for the number of distinct outcomes in N independent trials. Discrete Math. 6 (1973), 391-398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. 35 YAO, S.B. Approximating block accesses in database organizations. Commun. ACM 20, 4 (Apr. 1977), 260-261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. 36 YUE, P.C., AND WONG, C.K. Storage cost considerations in secondary index selection. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 4, 4 (1975), 307-315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Implications of certain assumptions in database performance evauation

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Database Systems
      ACM Transactions on Database Systems  Volume 9, Issue 2
      June 1984
      164 pages
      ISSN:0362-5915
      EISSN:1557-4644
      DOI:10.1145/329
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 1984 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 3 June 1984
      Published in tods Volume 9, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader