Accordion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing the ability to elastically use more or fewer servers on demand (scale out and scale in) as the load varies is essential for database management systems (DBMSes) deployed on today's distributed computing platforms, such as the cloud. This requires solving the problem of dynamic (online) data placement, which has so far been addressed only for workloads where all transactions are local to one sever. In DBMSes where ACID transactions can access more than one partition, distributed transactions represent a major performance bottleneck. Scaling out and spreading data across a larger number of servers does not necessarily result in a linear increase in the overall system throughput, because transactions that used to access only one server may become distributed. In this paper we present Accordion, a dynamic data placement system for partition-based DBMSes that support ACID transactions (local or distributed). It does so by explicitly considering the affinity between partitions, which indicates the frequency in which they are accessed together by the same transactions. Accordion estimates the capacity of a server by explicitly considering the impact of distributed transactions and affinity on the maximum throughput of the server. It then integrates this estimation in a mixed-integer linear program to explore the space of possible configurations and decide whether to scale out. We implemented Accordion and evaluated it using H-Store, a shared-nothing in-memory DBMS. Our results using the TPC-C and YCSB benchmarks show that Accordion achieves benefits compared to alternative heuristics of up to an order of magnitude reduction in the number of servers used and in the amount of data migrated.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.229 | 0.148 |
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".