Jayant R. Haritsa
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Robust query processing with strong performance guarantees is an extremely desirable objective in the design of industrial-strength database engines. However, it has proved to be a largely intractable and elusive challenge in spite of sustained efforts spanning several decades. The good news is that in recent times, there have been a host of exciting technical advances, at different levels in the database architecture, that collectively promise to materially address this problem. In this tutorial, we will present these novel research approaches, characterize their strengths and limitations, and enumerate open technical problems that remain to be solved to make robust query processing a contemporary reality.
- Robust Query Processing. Dagstuhl Seminar 10381, 2010.Google Scholar
- Robust Query Processing. Dagstuhl Seminar 12321, 2012.Google Scholar
- Robust Performance in Database Query Processing. Dagstuhl Seminar 17222, 2017.Google Scholar
- M. Akdere, U. Cetintemel, M. Riondato, E. Upfal and S. Zdonik. Learning-based query performance modeling and prediction. ICDE, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Avnur and J. Hellerstein. Eddies: Continuously Adaptive Query Processing. SIGMOD, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Babu, P. Bizarro and D. DeWitt. Proactive Re-optimization. SIGMOD, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Borovica-Gajic, S. Idreos, A. Ailamaki, M. Zukowski and C. Fraser. Smooth Scan: Robust Access Path Selection without Cardinality Estimation. VLDBJ, 27(4):521--545, 2018. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Chaudhuri. An Overview of Query Optimization in Relational Systems. PODS, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Chaudhuri. Query Optimizers: Time to rethink the contract? SIGMOD, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Chaudhuri. Interview in XRDS, 19(1), 2012.Google Scholar
- F. Chu, J. Halpern and P. Seshadri. Least Expected Cost Query Optimization: An Exercise in Utility. PODS, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Chu, J. Halpern and J. Gehrke. Least Expected Cost Query Optimization: What can we expect? PODS, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. DeWitt. Interview in Sigmod Record, 31(2), 2002.Google Scholar
- A. Dutt and J. Haritsa. Plan Bouquets: A Fragrant Approach to Robust Query Processing. ACM TODS, 41(2): 11:1--11:37, 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Dutt, V. Narasayya and S. Chaudhuri. Leveraging re-costing for online optimization of parameterized queries with guarantees. SIGMOD, 2017. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Dutt, C. Wang, A. Nazi, S. Kandula, V. Narasayya and S. Chaudhuri. Selectivity estimation for range predicates using lightweight models. PVLDB, 12(9):1044--1057, 2019. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Graefe. New algorithms for join and grouping operations. Computer Science - R&D, 27(1):3--27, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harish, D., P. Darera and J. Haritsa. On the Production of Anorexic Plan Diagrams. VLDB, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harish, D., P. Darera and J. Haritsa. Identifying Robust Plans through Plan Diagram Reduction. PVLDB, 1(1):1124--1140, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Harmouch and F. Naumann. Cardinality Estimation: An Experimental Survey. PVLDB, 11(4):499--512, 2017. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Hasan, S. Thirumuruganathan, J. Augustine, N. Koudas and G. Das. Deep Learning Models for Selectivity Estimation of Multi-attribute Queries. SIGMOD, 2020. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Havenstein, P. Lysakovski, N. May, G. Moerkotte and G. Steidl. Fast Entropy Maximization for Selectivity Estimation of Conjunctive Predicates on CPUs and GPUs. EDBT, 2020.Google Scholar
- R. Hayek and O. Shmueli. Improved Cardinality Estimation by Learning Queries Containment Rates. EDBT, 2020.Google Scholar
- N. Kabra and D. DeWitt. Efficient Mid-Query Re-Optimization of Sub-Optimal Query Execution Plans. SIGMOD, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Karthik, J. Haritsa, S. Kenkre, V. Pandit and L. Krishnan. Platform-independent Robust Query Processing. IEEE TKDE, 31(1):17--31, 2019.Google Scholar
- S. Karthik, J. Haritsa, S. Kenkre and V. Pandit. A Concave Path to Low-overhead Robust Query Processing. PVLDB, 11(13):2183--2195, 2018. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Kiefer, M. Heimel, S. Bress and V. Markl. Estimating Join Selectivities using Bandwidth-Optimized Kernel Density Models. PVLDB, 10(13):2085--2096, 2017. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kipf, T. Kipf, B. Radke, V. Leis, P. Boncz and A. Kemper. Learned Cardinalities: Estimating Correlated Joins with Deep Learning. CIDR, 2019.Google Scholar
- V. Leis, B. Radke, A. Gubichev, A. Mirchev, P. Boncz, A. Kemper and T. Neumann. Query Optimization through the looking glass, and what we found running the Join Order Benchmark. VLDBJ, 27(5):643--668, 2018. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Leis, B. Radke, A. Gubichev, A. Kempers and T. Neumann. Cardinality Estimation Done Right: Index-based Join Sampling. CIDR, 2017.Google Scholar
- Z. Li, O. Papaemmanouil and M. Cherniack. OptMark: A Toolkit for Benchmarking Query Optimizers. CIKM, 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Lohman. Is Query Optimization a "Solved" Problem? ACM Sigmod Blog, 2014. wp.sigmod.org/?p=1075.Google Scholar
- T. Malik, R. Burns and N. Chawla. A Black-Box Approach to Query Cardinality Estimation. CIDR, 2007.Google Scholar
- R. Marcus and O. Papaemmanouil. Towards a Hands-Free Query Optimizer through Deep Learning. CIDR, 2019.Google Scholar
- V. Markl, V. Raman, D. Simmen, G. Lohman, H. Pirahesh and M. Cilimdzic. Robust query processing through progressive optimization. SIGMOD, 2004.Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Moerkotte, T. Neumann and G. Steidl. Preventing Bad Plans by Bounding the Impact of Cardinality Estimation Errors. PVLDB, 2(1):982--993, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Negi, R. Marcus, H. Mao, N. Tatbul, T. Kraska and M. Alizadeh. Cost-Guided Cardinality Estimation: Focus Where it Matters. IEEE ICDE Workshops, 2020.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Ramachandra, K. Park, K. Emani, A. Halverson, C. Galindo-Legaria and C. Cunningham. Froid: Optimization of Imperative Programs in a Relational Database. PVLDB, 11(4):432--444, 2017. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Roediger, S. Idicula, A. Kemper and T. Neumann. Flow-join: Adaptive skew handling for distributed joins over highspeed networks. ICDE, 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Sun and G. Li. An End-to-End Learning-based Cost Estimator. PVLDB, 13(3):307--319, 2019. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Tzoumas, A. Deshpande and C. Jensen. Efficiently adapting graphical models for selectivity estimation. VLDBJ, 22(1):3--27, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Wiener, H. Kuno and G. Graefe. Benchmarking Query Execution Robustness. TPCTC, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Wolf, M. Brendle, N. May, P. Willems, K. Sattler and M. Grossniklaus. Robustness Metrics for Relational Query Execution Plans. PVLDB, 11(11):1360--1372, 2018. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Wu, Y. Chi, H. Hacigumus and J. Naughton. Towards predicting query execution time for concurrent and dynamic database workloads. PVLDB, 6(10):925--936, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Wu, Y. Chi, S. Zhu, J. Tatemura, H. Hacigumus and J. Naughton. Predicting query execution time: Are optimizer cost models really unusable? ICDE, 2013.Google Scholar
- W. Wu, J. Naughton and H. Singh. Sampling-based Query Re-optimization. SIGMOD, 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Wu, X. Wu, H. Hacigumus and J. Naughton. Uncertainty Aware Query Execution Time Prediction. PVLDB, 7(14):1857--1868, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Z. Yang et al. Deep Unsupervised Selectivity Estimation. PVLDB, 13(3):279--292, 2019. Google ScholarDigital Library
Recommendations
View-based query processing: On the relationship between rewriting, answering and losslessness
As a result of the extensive research in view-based query processing, three notions have been identified as fundamental, namely rewriting, answering, and losslessness. Answering amounts to computing the tuples satisfying the query in all databases ...
View-based query processing: on the relationship between rewriting, answering and losslessness
ICDT'05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Database TheoryAs a result of the extensive research in view-based query processing, three notions have been identi.ed as fundamental, namely rewriting, answering, and losslessness. Answering amounts to computing the tuples satisfying the query in all databases ...
Comments