Database engines: Evolution of greenness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Information technology consumes up to 10% of the world's electricity generation, contributing to CO 2 emissions and high energy costs. Data centers, particularly databases, use up to 23% of this energy. Therefore, building an energy‐efficient (green) database engine could reduce energy consumption and CO 2 emissions. The goal of this study is to understand the factors driving databases' energy consumption and execution time throughout their evolution. We conducted an empirical case study of energy consumption by 2 MySQL database engines, InnoDB and MyISAM, across 40 releases. We examined the relationships of 4 software metrics to energy consumption and execution time to determine which metrics reflect the greenness and performance of a database. Our analysis shows that database engines' energy consumption and execution time increase as databases evolve. Moreover, the lines of code (LOC) metric is correlated moderately to strongly with energy consumption and execution time in 88% of cases. Our findings provide insights to practitioners and researchers. Database administrators may use them to select a fast, green release of the MySQL database engine. MySQL developers may use LOC to assess products' greenness and performance. Researchers may use our findings to further develop new hypotheses or build models predicting greenness and performance of databases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".