skip to main content
10.1145/2463676.2465292acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Micro adaptivity in Vectorwise

Published:22 June 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Performance of query processing functions in a DBMS can be affected by many factors, including the hardware platform, data distributions, predicate parameters, compilation method, algorithmic variations and the interactions between these. Given that there are often different function implementations possible, there is a latent performance diversity which represents both a threat to performance robustness if ignored (as is usual now) and an opportunity to increase the performance if one would be able to use the best performing implementation in each situation. Micro Adaptivity, proposed here, is a framework that keeps many alternative function implementations (flavors) in a system. It uses a learning algorithm to choose the most promising flavor potentially at each function call, guided by the actual costs observed so far. We argue that Micro Adaptivity both increases performance robustness, and saves development time spent in finding and tuning heuristics and cost model thresholds in query optimization. In this paper, we (i) characterize a number of factors that cause performance diversity between primitive flavors, (ii) describe an e-greedy learning algorithm that casts the flavor selection into a multi-armed bandit problem, and (iii) describe the software framework for Micro Adaptivity that we implemented in the Vectorwise system. We provide micro-benchmarks, and an overall evaluation on TPC-H, showing consistent improvements.

References

  1. C. W. Antoine, A. Petitet, and J. J. Dongarra. Automated empirical optimization of software and the atlas project. Parallel Computing, 27:2001, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. Auer, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and P. Fischer. Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem. Machine Learning, 47(2-3):235--256, May 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. Boncz, M. Zukowski, and N. Nes. MonetDB/X100: Hyper-Pipelining Query Execution. In CIDR, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Chen, A. Ailamaki, P. B. Gibbons, and T. C. Mowry. Improving hash join performance through prefetching. TODS, 32(3), Aug. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Datta, et. al. Stencil computation optimization and auto-tuning on state-of-the-art multicore architectures. In ACM/IEEE Conf. on Supercomputing, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. A. Deshpande, Z. Ives, and V. Raman. Adaptive query processing. Foundations and Trends in Databases, 1(1):1--140, Jan. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Frigo and S. G. Johnson. FFTW: An adaptive software architecture for the FFT. In Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. T. Lai and H. Robbins. Asymptotically efficient adaptive allocation rules. Advances in Applied Math., 6:4--22, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. X. Li, M. J. Garzaran, and D. Padua. A dynamically tuned sorting library, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Madden, M. Shah, J. Hellerstein, and V. Raman. Continuously adaptive continuous queries over streams. In SIGMOD, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Padmanabhan, T. Malkemus, R. Agarwal, and A. Jhingran. Block oriented processing of relational database operations in modern computer architectures. In ICDE, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. H. Robbins. Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments. Bulletin of the AMS, 58:527--535, 1952.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. K. A. Ross. Selection conditions in main memory. TODS, 29(1):132--161, Mar. 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Sompolski, M. Zukowski, and P. Boncz. Vectorization vs. compilation in query execution. In DAMON, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Vermorel and M. Mohri. Multi-armed bandit algorithms and empirical evaluation. In In European Conference on Machine Learning, pages 437--448. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Watkins. Learning from Delayed Rewards. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge,England, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. Zukowski. Balancing Vectorized Query Execution With Bandwidth-Optimized Storage. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, September 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Zukowski and P. Boncz. Vectorwise: Beyond column stores. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 35(1):21--27, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Micro adaptivity in Vectorwise

      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