skip to main content
10.1145/1807167.1807257acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Feeding frenzy: selectively materializing users' event feeds

Published:06 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Near real-time event streams are becoming a key feature of many popular web applications. Many web sites allow users to create a personalized feed by selecting one or more event streams they wish to follow. Examples include Twitter and Facebook, which a user to follow other users' activity, and iGoogle and My Yahoo, which allow users to follow selected RSS streams. How can we efficiently construct a web page showing the latest events from a user's feed? Constructing such a feed must be fast so the page loads quickly, yet reflects recent updates to the underlying event streams. The wide fanout of popular streams (those with many followers) and high skew (fanout and update rates vary widely) make it difficult to scale such applications.

We associate feeds with consumers and event streams with producers. We demonstrate that the best performance results from selectively materializing each consumer's feed: events from high-rate producers are retrieved at query time, while events from lower-rate producers are materialized in advance. A formal analysis of the problem shows the surprising result that we can minimize global cost by making local decisions about each producer/consumer pair, based on the ratio between a given producer's update rate (how often an event is added to the stream) and a given consumer's view rate (how often the feed is viewed). Our experimental results, using Yahoo!'s web-scale database PNUTS, shows that this hybrid strategy results in the lowest system load (and hence improves scalability) under a variety of workloads.

References

  1. Twitter API. http://apiwiki.twitter.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. Agrawal, A. E. Abbadi, A. K. Singh, and T. Yurek. Efficient view maintenance at data warehouses. In SIGMOD, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. Agrawal et al. Asynchronous view maintenance for VLSD databases. In SIGMOD, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Agrawal, S. Chaudhuri, and V. Narasayya. Automated selection of materialized views and indexes for SQL databases. In VLDB, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Babu, K. Munagala, and J. Widom. Adaptive caching for continuous queries. In ICDE, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Cafarella et al. Data management projects at Google. SIGMOD Record, 34--38(1), March 2008. 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. B. Chandramouli and J. Yang. End-to-end support for joins in large-scale publish/subscribe systems. In VLDB, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. B. F. Cooper et al. PNUTS: Yahoo!'s hosted data serving platform. In VLDB, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. I. Eure. Looking to the future with Cassandra. http://blog.digg.com/?p=966.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C. Garrod et al. Scalable query result caching for web applications. In VLDB, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. G. Graefe. B-tree indexes for high update rates. SIGMOD Record, 35(1):39--44, March 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. H. Gupta. Selection of views to materialize in a data warehouse. In ICDT, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. P. Haas and J. Hellerstein. Ripple joins for online aggregation. In SIGMOD, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Halevy. Answering queries using views: A survey. VLDB Journal, 10(4):270--294, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. G. Luo. Partial Materialized Views. In ICDE, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. G. Luo, J. F. Naughton, C. J. Ellmann, and M. Watzke. A comparison of three methods for join view maintenance in parallel RDBMS. In ICDE, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. S. Madden, M. Franklin, J. Hellerstein, and W. Hong. TinyDB: An acquisitional query processing system for sensor networks. TODS, 30(1):122--173, March 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Martello and P. Toth. Knapsack Problems: Algorithms and Computer Implementations. Wiley-Interscience, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. C. Mohan and I. Narang. Algorithms for creating indexes for very large tables without quiescing updates. In SIGMOD, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. C. Olston, J. Jiang, and J. Widom. Adaptive filters for continuous queries over distributed data streams. In SIGMOD, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Re and D. Suciu. Materialized views in probabilistic databases: for information exchange and query optimization. In VLDB, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. K. Salem, K. Beyer, B. Lindsay, and R. Cochrane. How to roll a join: Asynchronous incremental view maintenance. In SIGMOD, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. P. Seshadri and A. Swami. Generalized partial indexes. In ICDE, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Stonebraker. The case for partial indexes. SIGMOD Record, 18(4):4--11, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. E. Weaver. Improving running components at Twitter. http://blog.evanweaver.com/articles/2009/03/13/-qcon-presentation/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. S. Wu, J. Li, B. Ooi, and K.-L. Tan. Just-in-time query retrieval over partially indexed data on structured P2P overlays. In SIGMOD, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. Yang and J. Widom. Temporal view self-maintenance. In EDBT, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. K. Yi et al. Efficient maintenance of materialized top-k views. In ICDE, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Zhou, P.-A. Larson, and H. G. Elmongui. Lazy maintenance of materialized views. In VLDB, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Y. Zhou, A. Salehi, and K. Aberer. Scalable delivery of stream query results. In VLDB, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Y. Zhuge, H. Garcia-Molina, J. Hammer, and J. Widom. View maintenance in a warehousing environment. In SIGMOD, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Feeding frenzy: selectively materializing users' event feeds

    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 '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data
      June 2010
      1286 pages
      ISBN:9781450300322
      DOI:10.1145/1807167

      Copyright © 2010 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: 6 June 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader