MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144447931 · doi:10.1109/tsmca.2005.843385

Multiagent Immediate Incremental View Maintenance for Data Warehouses

2005· article· en· W2144447931 on OpenAlexaff
G.C.H. Yeung, W.A. Gruver

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics - Part A Systems and Humans · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntimeData warehouseComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)DelegateDatabaseProcess (computing)Materialized viewOperating systemDatabase designArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data warehouse systems typically designate downtime for view maintenance, ranging from tens of minutes to hours depending on the system size. We develop a multiagent system that achieves immediate incremental view maintenance (IIVM) for continuous updating of data warehouse views. We describe an IIVM system that processes updates as transactions are executed at the underlying data sources to eliminate view maintenance downtime for the data warehouse-a crucial requirement for internet applications. The use of a multiagent framework provides considerable process speed improvement when compared with other IIVM systems. Since agents are used to delegate the data sources and warehouse views, it is easy to reorganize the components of the system. Through the use of cooperative agents, the data consistency of IIVM can be easily maintained. The test results from this research show that the proposed system increases the availability of the data warehouse while preserving a stringent requirement on data consistency.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics - Part A Systems and HumansSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207