Predicting completion times of batch query workloads using interaction-aware models and simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A question that database administrators (DBAs) routinely need to answer is how long a batch query workload will take to complete. This question arises, for example, while planning the execution of different report-generation workloads to fit within available time windows. To answer this question accurately, we need to take into account that the typical workload in a database system consists of mixes of concurrent queries. Interactions among different queries in these mixes need to be modeled, rather than the conventional approach of considering each query separately. This paper presents a new approach for estimating workload completion times that takes the significant impact of query interactions into account. This approach builds performance models using an experiment-driven technique, by sampling the space of possible query mixes and fitting statistical models to the observed performance at these samples. No prior assumptions are made about the internal workings of the database system or the cause of query interactions, making the models robust and portable. We show that a careful choice of sampling and statistical modeling strategies can result in accurate models, and we present a novel interaction-aware workload simulator that uses these models to estimate workload completion times. An experimental evaluation with complex TPC-H queries on IBM DB2 shows that this approach consistently predicts workload completion times with less than 20% error.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".