Stream Processing in a Relational Database: a Case Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A consensus seems to have emerged that streams cannot be processed efficiently by relational database engines. This point has been strongly advocated by Michael Stonebreaker, whose StreamBase [19] offers two orders of magnitude better performance in stream processing than a standard DBMS. We faced the challenge and investigated how much improvement in stream processing can be achieved in a standard DBMS just by appropriate tuning and use of features already available there. In this paper, we describe some of the techniques useful for stream processing and show how dramatic performance improvements they can provide. We tend to agree with Stonebreaker that the idea one size fits in no longer applicable to all data-centric applications. However, we also believe that dismissing DBMS as irrelevant in stream processing applications is premature. We hope to show that relational database systems are sufficiently flexible to make the idea one size may fit you worth looking into.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it