skip to main content
article
Free Access

Parallel database systems: the future of high performance database systems

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 June 1992Publication History
First page image

References

  1. 1 Alexander, W., et al. Process and dataflow control in distributed data-intensive systems. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD Con}brence (Chicago, Ill., June 1988) ACM, NY, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2 Bitton, D. and Gray, J, Disk shadowing. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth international Conference on Very Large Data Bases (Los Angeles, CaliL, August, 1988). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3 Boral, H. and DeWitt, D. Database machines: An idea whose time has passed? A critique of the future of database machines. In Proceedings of the 1983 Workshop on Database Machines. H.-O. Leilich and M. Missikoff, Eds., Springer-Verlag, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4 Boral, H. et al. Prototyping Bubba: A highly parallel database system. IEEE Knowi. Data Eng. 2, 1, (Mar. 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5 Codd, E.F. A relational model of data for large shared databanks. Commun. ACM 13, 6 (June 1970). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6 Copeland, G., Alexander, W., Boughter, E., and Keller, T. Data placement in Bubba. In Proceedings of ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (Chicago, May 1988). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7 DeWitt, D.J., Katz, R., Olken, F., Shapiro, D., Stonebraker, M. and Wood, D. Implementation techniques for main memory database systems. In Proceedings of the 1984 SIGMOD Conference, (Boston, Mass., June, 1984). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8 DeWitt, D., et al. GAMMA-A high performance dataflow database machine. In Proceedings of the 1986 VLDB Conference (Japan, August 1986). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9 De Witt, D., et al. The Gamma database machine project. IEEE Knowl. Data Eng. 2, 1 (Mar. 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10 Engelbert, S, Gray, J., Kocher, T., and Stah, P. A benchmark of nonstop SQL Release 2 demonstrating near-linear speedup and scaleup on large databases. Tandem Computers, Technical Report 89.4, Tandem Part No. 27469, May 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11 Ghandeharizadeh, S., and DeWitt, D.J. Performance analysis of alternative declustering strategies. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Data Engineering (Feb. 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 12 Ghandeharizadeh, S., and Dewitt, D J. Hybrid-range partitioning strategy: A new declustering strategy for multiprocessor database machines. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Very Large Data Baaes, (Melbourne, Australia, Aug. 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13 Gibbs, J. Massively parallel systems, rethinking computing for business and science. Oracle 6, 1 (Dec. 1991).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14 Graefe, G. Encapsulation of parallelism in the Volcano query processing system. In Proceedings of 1990 ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on Managemeni of Data (May 1990), Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15 Graefe, G. alid Ward, K, Dvminm: query evaluation plans, in Proeeedings of the 1989 SIGMOD Conference, (Portland, Ore., June 1989.). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 16 Hirano, M.S. et al. Architecture of SDC., the super database computer. In Proceedings of JSPP '90. 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17 Hua, K.A. and Lee, C. Handling data skew in multiprocessor database computers using partition runing. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Very, Large Data Bases. (Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 1991). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18 Kitsuregawa, M., Tanaka, H., and Moto-oka, T. Application of hash to data base machine and its architecture, New Generation Computing 1,1 (1983).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. 19 Kitsuregawa. M., Yang, W., and Fushimi, S. Evaluation of 18-stage pipeline hardware sorter. In Proceedingsof the Third International Conference on Data Engineering (Feb. 1987).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20 Kitsuregawa. M. and Ogawa, Y. A new parallel hash join method with robustness for data skew in super database computer (SDC). In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. (Melbourne, Australia, Aug. 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21 Lorie, R., Daudenarde, J., Hallmark, G., Stamos, J., and Young, H. Adding intra-transaction parallelism to an existing DBMS: Early experience. IEEE Data Engineering Newsletter 12, 1 (Mar. 1989).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 22 Patterson, D. A., Gibson, G. and Katz, R. H. A case for redundant arrays of inexpensive disks (RAID). In Proceeditkgs of the ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on Managemerit of Data. (Chicago, May 1988), Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 23 Ries, D. and Epstein R. Evaluation of distribution criteria for distrib uted database systems. UBC/ERL Technical Report M78/22, UC Berkeley, May, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24 Salem, K. and Garcia-Molina, H. Disk-striping. Department of Computer Science, Princeton University Technical Report EEDS-TR-322- 84, Princeton, N.J., Dec. 1984.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 25 Schneider, D. and DeWitt, D. A performance evaluation of four parallel join algorithms in a sharednothing multiprocessor environment. In Proceedings of the 1989 SIG- MOD Conference (Portland, Ore., June 1989). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 26 Schneider, D. and Dewitt, D. Tradeoffs in processing complex join queries via hashing in multiprocessor database machines. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Coference on Very Large Data Bases. (Melbourne, Australia, Aug., 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 27 Selinger P. G., et al. Access path selection in a relational database management system. In Proceedings of the 1979 SIGMOD Conference (Boston, Mass., May 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. 28 Stonebraker, M. Muffin: A distributed database machine. ERL Technical Report UCB/ERL M79/28, University of California at Berkeley, May 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 29 Stonebraker, M. The case for shared nothing. Datababase Eng. 9. 1 (1986).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 30 Stonebraker, M., Katz, R., Patterson. D., and Ousterhout, J. The design of XPRS. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. (Los Angeles, Calif., Aug. 1988). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 31 Tandem Database Group. NonStop SQL, a distributed, high-performance, high-reliability implementation of SQL. Workshop on High Pertormance Transaction Systems, Asilomar, CA, Sept. 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 32 Tandem Performance Group. A benchmark of non-stop SQL on the debit credit transaction. In Proceedings of the 1988 SIGMOD Conference Chicago, Ill., June 1988). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 33 Teradata Corporation. DBC/1012 Data Base Computer Concepts & Facilities. Document No. C02-0001- 00, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 34 Tevanian, A., et al. A Unix interface for shared memory and memory mappecd files under Mach. Dept. of Computer Science Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, July, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 35 Thakkar, S.S. and Sweiger, M. Performance of an OLTP application on symmetry multiprocessor systenl. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture. (Seattle, Wash., May, 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. 36 The Performance Handbook for Database and Transaction Processing Systems. J. Gray, Ed., Morgan Kaufmann, San Marco, Ca., 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. 37 Walton, C.B., Date, A.G., and Jenevem, R.M. A taxonomy and perlbrmance model of data skew efects in parallel joins. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on. Very Large Data Bases. (Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 1991). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. 38 Wolf, J.L. Dias, D.M., and Yu, P.S. An effective algorithm for paraltelizing sort-merge johns in the presence of data skew. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Systems. (Dublira, Ireland, July, 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. 39 Zeller, H.J. and Gray, J. Adaptive hash joins for a multiprogramming environment. In Proceedings of the 1990 VLDB Conference (Australia, Aug. 1990). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Parallel database systems: the future of high performance database systems

                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 Communications of the ACM
                  Communications of the ACM  Volume 35, Issue 6
                  June 1992
                  124 pages
                  ISSN:0001-0782
                  EISSN:1557-7317
                  DOI:10.1145/129888
                  Issue’s Table of Contents

                  Copyright © 1992 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: 1 June 1992

                  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