MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1819934925 · doi:10.7302/24323

Query optimization in multidatabase systems

2024· article· en· W1819934925 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeep Blue (University of Michigan) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuery optimizationComputer scienceSargableQuery expansionQuery languageWeb search queryViewQuery by ExampleDistributed databaseOnline aggregationDatabaseRDF query languageWeb query classificationInformation retrievalDistributed computingData miningSearch engineDatabase design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multidatabase system (MDBS) integrates information from autonomous local databases managed by heterogeneous database management systems (DBMS) in a distributed environment. For a query involving more than one database, global query optimization should be performed to achieve good overall system performance. The significant differences between an MDBS and a traditional distributed database system (DDBS) make query optimization in the former more challenging than in the latter. Challenges for query optimization in an MDBS are discussed in this paper. A two-phase optimization approach for processing a query in an MDBS is proposed. Several global query optimization techniques suitable for an MDBS, such as semantic query optimization, query optimization via probing queries, parametric query optimization and adaptive query optimization, are suggested. The architecture of a global query optimizer incorporating these techniques is designed.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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