MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281747838 · doi:10.1145/3514221.3526161

Natto: Providing Distributed Transaction Prioritization for High-Contention Workloads

2022· article· en· W4281747838 on OpenAlexaff
Linguan Yang, Xinan Yan, Bernard Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabase transactionTimestampDistributed transactionTransaction processingLatency (audio)PrioritizationOnline transaction processingDistributed databaseDatabaseDistributed computingComputer networkBusinessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces Natto, a geo-distributed database system that supports transaction prioritization. Instead of having each shard process transactions in their arrival order, Natto leverages network measurements to estimate the transaction arrival time at each shard, and assigns a timestamp to the transaction based on its arrival time to the furthest shard. These timestamps establish a global ordering of transactions, and introduces opportunities to selectively abort pending low-priority transactions that conflict with a high-priority transaction, or even preempt transactions that are already partially prepared. Our experiments on both Microsoft Azure and a local cluster show that Natto's tail latency for high-priority transactions are significantly lower than the tail latencies of Carousel and TAPIR, which are the current state-of-the-art in geo-distributed transaction processing systems.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of DataSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207