skip to main content
research-article

When is it time to rethink the aggregate configuration of your OLAP server?

Published:01 August 2008Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

OLAP servers based on relational backends typically exploit materialized aggregate tables to improve response times of complex analytical queries. One of the key problems in this context is the view selection problem: choosing the optimal set of aggregation tables (called configuration) for a given workload. In this paper, we present a system that continuously monitors the workload and raises a quantified alert, when a better configuration is available. We address the tasks of query monitoring and view selection at the OLAP level instead of the SQL level, which simplifies the containment checks as well as rewriting and in this way helps to reduce the complexity of the backend system. At the demo we plan to show how our system works, i.e., how the system reacts upon arbitrary (interactive) workloads and how the user is alerted that a better configuration is available.

References

  1. S. Agrawal, S. Chaudhuri, and V. Narasayya. Automated Selection of Materialized Views and Indexes in SQL Databases. In VLDB '00, pages 496--505, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. N. Bruno and S. Chaudhuri. To Tune or not to Tune? A Lightweight Physical Design Alerter. In VLDB 06, pages 499--510, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. N. Bruno and S. Chaudhuri. An Online Approach to Physical Design Tuning. In ICDE '07, pages 826--835, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. S. Chaudhuri and V. Narasayya. An Efficient Cost-Driven Index Selection Tool for Microsoft SQL Server. In VLDB '97, pages 146--155, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Chaudhuri and G. Weikum. Rethinking Database System Architecture: Towards a Self-Tuning RISC-Style Database System. In VLDB '00, pages 1--10, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. P. Corporation. Pentaho Analysis Services: Mondrian Project. http://mondrian.pentaho.org, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. V. Harinarayan, A. Rajaraman, and J. Ullman. Implementing Data Cubes Efficiently. SIGMOD '96, pages 205--216, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Lee and J. Hammer. Speeding Up Materialized View Selection in Data Warehouses Using a Randomized Algorithm. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst., 10(3):327--353, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. M. Lühring, K. Sattler, K. Schmidt, and E. Schallehn. Autonomous Tuning with Soft Indexes. In SMDB '07, pages 450--458, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. K. Sattler, I. Geist, and E. Schallehn. QUIET: Continuous Query-driven Index Tuning. In VLDB '03, pages 1129--1132, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. Zhang and J. Yang. Genetic Algorithm for Materialized View Selection in Data Warehouse Environments. In DaWaK '99, pages 116--125, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Zilio, J. Rao, S. Lightstone, G. Lohman, A. Storm, C. Garcia-Arellano, and S. Fadden. DB2 Design Advisor: Integrated Automatic Physical Database Design. In VLDB '04, pages 1087--1097, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. When is it time to rethink the aggregate configuration of your OLAP server?

          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

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader