MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104999292

Configuring buffer pools in DB2 UDB

2002· article· en· W2104999292 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabasePartition (number theory)Database transactionTransaction processingDatabase indexOnline transaction processingDatabase tuningDatabase designWorkloadDistributed databaseViewSet (abstract data type)Database testingDatabase theoryOperating systemInformation retrievalSearch engine indexing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Database Management Systems (DBMSs) use a main memory area as a to reduce the number of disk accesses performed by a transaction. DB2 Universal Database divides the area into a number of independent pools and each database object (table or index) is assigned to a specific pool. The tasks of configuring the pools, which defines the mapping of database objects to pools and setting a size for each of the pools, is crucial for achieving optimal performance.Mapping database objects to pools, which we refer to as the buffer pool configuration is the focus of this paper. Mapping database objects to pools can be viewed as a partitioning problem, that is, we partition the database objects into groups where each group is assigned a separate pool. The partitioning of objects is based on how the objects are used and on the inherent properties of objects. We present an approach to the configuration problem based on analyzing the access behaviour of a given database workload to the set of database objects. The approach is demonstrated with a typical OLTP workload.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.222 · 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