Increasing Buffer-Locality for Multiple Relational Table Scans through Grouping and Throttling
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision support (DSS) workloads generally contain multiple large concurrent scan operations. These are often executed as relational table scans which can take up a lot of I/O bandwidth. This is especially true for ad-hoc queries where the workload is not known in advance. Common database management systems have only limited ability to reuse memory buffer content across multiple running queries due to their treatment of queries in isolation. Previous attempts to coordinate scans for better buffer reuse were less than satisfactory due to drifting between scans and the required radical DBMS architecture changes. In this paper, we describe a new mechanism to keep similar table scans closer together during scanning. This is achieved via dynamic grouping and regrouping of scans based on their runtime behavior and via adaptive throttling of scan speeds based on scan group characteristics. The required memory footprint is very small and the effort required to extend existing database management systems is minimal, as shown in our DB2 UDB prototype. Our experiments show significant gains in end-to-end response times as well as average response times for TPC-H workloads.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it