MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808526906 · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2018.00101

Scalable Transaction Processing Using Functors

2018· article· en· W2808526906 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Fan, Wojciech Golab

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityParallel computingConcurrencySerializationCache coherenceDistributed computingProgramming languageOperating systemCache

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed transactions, which access data items at multiple sites atomically, face well-known scalability challenges. To avoid the high overhead, in prior work Fan et al. proposed Epoch-based Concurrency Control (ECC), which makes transactions visible at epoch boundaries, and presented a system that supports high performance read-only and write-only transactions. However, this idea has a clear difficulty to overcome: the common case of a single transaction that does both reading and writing. This paper proposes ALOHA-DB, a scalable distributed transaction processing system. ALOHA-DB uses a novel paradigm of serializable transaction processing using functors, which conceptually resemble futures in modern programming languages. A functor is a placeholder for the value of a key, which can be computed asynchronously in the future in parallel with other functor computations of the same or other transactions. With multi-versioning in ECC, the functor computations only rely on accessing historical versions, and so the traditional locking mechanism is not needed for concurrency control. Functors elevate ECC to a new level: supporting serializable distributed read-write transactions. This combination of techniques never aborts transactions due to read-write or write-write conflicts, but allows transactions to fail due to logic errors or constraint violations. We used functor-enabled ECC to implement ALOHA-DB and evaluated it using TPC-C and YCSB read-write distributed transactions. Experimental results demonstrate that our system's performance on the TPC-C benchmark is nearly 2 million transactions per second over 20 eight-core virtual machines, which outperforms Calvin, a state-of-the-art transaction processing and replication layer, by one to two orders of magnitude.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207