MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766474394 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2017.2767044

Workload Management in Database Management Systems: A Taxonomy

2017· article· en· W2766474394 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceDatabaseProcess (computing)Data managementOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workload management is the discipline of effectively monitoring, managing and controlling work flow across computing systems. In particular, workload management in database management systems (DBMSs) is the process or act of monitoring and controlling work (i.e., requests) executing on a database system in order to make efficient use of system resources in addition to achieving any performance objectives assigned to that work. In the past decade, workload management studies and practice have made considerable progress in both academia and industry. New techniques have been proposed by researchers, and new features of workload management facilities have been implemented in most commercial database products. In this paper, we provide a systematic study of workload management in today's DBMSs by developing a taxonomy of workload management techniques. We apply the taxonomy to evaluate and classify existing workload management techniques implemented in the commercial databases and available in the recent research literature. We also introduce the underlying principles of today's workload management technology for DBMSs, discuss open problems, and outline some research opportunities in this research area.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.221 · 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