DW vs OLTP Performance Optimization in the Cloud on PostgreSQL (A Case Study)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study shows the performance issues and solutions for a data warehouse (DW) performing well to serve industrial partners in improving customer data retrieval performance. An online transaction processing (OLTP) relational database and a DW were deployed in PostgreSQL and tested against each other. Several test cases were carried out with the DW, including indexing and creating pre-aggregated tables, all guided by in-depth analysis of EXPLAIN plans. Queries and DW design were continually improved throughout testing to ensure that the OLTP and DW were compared equally. Seven queries (requested by the industrial client) were used to thoroughly test different performance aspects concerning client feedback and the complexity of requests for all areas the DW might cover. On average, the data warehouse showed a one to three magnitudes increase in query execution performance, with the highest calibre results coming in at 2,493 times faster than the OLTP. All test cases showed an increase in performance over the OLTP. Additionally, the data contained in the DWtook up 24% less storage space than the OLTP. The results here indicate a promising direction to take business analytics with data warehousing, as customers will experience significant cost savings and a reduction in time to receive desired results from their data storage platforms in the cloud. The work in this case study is a continuation of previous work in a much larger project concerning integrating database technologies with machine learning to improve natural language processing solutions as a cost-saving measure for utilities consumers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it