Increasing Buffer-Locality for Multiple Relational Table Scans through Grouping and Throttling
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".