MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025036269 · doi:10.1145/1923947.1923969

Lightweight problem determination in DBMSs using data stream analysis techniques

2010· article· en· W2025036269 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Huang, Patrick Martin, Wendy Powley, Paul Bird, D.G. Abrashkevich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOverhead (engineering)IBMTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)DatabaseData miningData streamStream processingReal-time computingDistributed computingOperating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem determination in a database management system can be a difficult task given the complexity of the system and the large amount of data that must be collected and analyzed. Monitoring the system for this data incurs overhead and has a detrimental effect on application performance. As an alternative to the standard practice of storing the performance data and performing offline analysis, we examine an approach where monitoring data is produced as a continuous data stream and data stream mining techniques are applied. We implement this approach as a prototype system called Tempo on IBM DB2®. Tempo implements Top-K analysis, which is a common task performed by database administrators for problem determination. Top-K analysis typically identifies the set of most frequently occurring events, or the highest consumers of system resources. Our experimental evaluation indicates that Tempo is time and space efficient, incurs low overhead, and produces accurate results.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207