MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1507724384

A methodology for auto-recognizing DBMS workloads

2002· article· en· W1507724384 on OpenAlexaff
Said Elnaffar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnline transaction processingWorkloadComputer scienceDatabaseOnline analytical processingBenchmark (surveying)Construct (python library)Decision support systemTransaction processingData miningOperating systemDatabase transactionData warehouseComputer network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The type of the workload on a database management system (DBMS) is a key consideration in tuning the system. Allocations for resources such as main memory can be very different depending on whether the workload type is Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) or Decision Support System (DSS). A DBMS also typically experiences changes in the type of workload it handles during its normal processing cycle. Database administrators must, therefore, recognize the significant shifts of workload type that demand reconfiguring the system in order to maintain acceptable levels of performance. We envision autonomous, selftuning DBMSs that have the capability to manage their own performance by automatically recognizing the workload type and then reconfiguring their resources accordingly. In this paper, we present an approach to automatically identifying a DBMS workload as either OLTP or DSS. We build a classification model based on the most significant workload characteristics that differenti ate OLTP from DSS and then use the model to identify any change in the workload type. We construct and compare classifiers built from two different sets of industry-standard workloads, namely the TPC-C and TPC-H benchmarks, and the Browsing and Ordering profiles from the TPC-W benchmark. We conduct various sets of experiments that show that our workload classifiers are reliable, and have high accuracy in recognizing the type of the workload mix and in estimating the degree of its concentration.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207