MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic View Selection for OLAP

2011· book-chapter· en· W4238268284 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Michael, Rau-Chaplin Andrew

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnline analytical processingMaterialized viewData warehouseComputer scienceAggregate (composite)Selection (genetic algorithm)Task (project management)Set (abstract data type)Information retrievalOrder (exchange)Data miningDatabaseViewArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a data warehousing environment, aggregate views are often materialized in order to speed up aggregate queries of online analytical processing (OLAP). Due to the increasing size of data warehouses, it is often infeasible to materialize all views. View selection, the task of selecting a subset of views to materialize based on updates and expectations of the query load, is an important and challenging problem. In this article, we explore dynamic view selection in which the distribution of queries changes over time and the set of materialized views must be tuned by replacing some of the previously materialized views with new ones.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207