MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104999292

Configuring buffer pools in DB2 UDB

2002· article· en· W2104999292 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyi Xu, Patrick Martin, Wendy Powley

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative ResearchSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207