MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148682126 · doi:10.1109/ipdps.2012.85

Query Optimization and Execution in a Parallel Analytics DBMS

2012· article· en· W2148682126 on OpenAlexaff
Todd Eavis, Ahmad Taleb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnline analytical processingComputer scienceScalabilityQuery optimizationSargableData warehouseViewDatabaseSearch engine indexingNoSQLAnalyticsBig dataQuery expansionParallel databaseRelational database management systemRelational databaseWeb search queryInformation retrievalData miningSearch engineDatabase design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 15 years, data warehousing and OLAP technologies have matured to the point whereby they have become a cornerstone for the decision making process in organizations of all sizes. With the underlying databases growing enormously in size, parallel DBM systems have become a popular target platform. Perhaps the most ``obvious'' approach to scalable warehousing is to combine a small collection of conventional relational DBMSs into a loosely connected parallel DBMS. Such systems, however, benefit little, if at all, from advances in OLAP indexing, storage, compression, modeling, or query optimization. In the current paper, we discuss a parallel analytics server that has been designed from the ground up as a high performance OLAP query engine. Moreover, its indexing and query processing model directly exploits an OLAP-specific algebra that enables performance optimizations beyond the reach of simple relational DBMS clusters. Taken together, the server provides class-leading query performance with the scalability of shared nothing databases and, perhaps most importantly, achieves this balance with a modest physical architecture.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207