Online schema evolution is (almost) free for snapshot databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern database applications often change their schemas to keep up with the changing requirements. However, support for online and transactional schema evolution remains challenging in existing database systems. Specifically, prior work often takes ad hoc approaches to schema evolution with "patches" applied to existing systems, leading to many corner cases and often incomplete functionality. Applications therefore often have to carefully schedule downtimes for schema changes, sacrificing availability. This paper presents Tesseract, a new approach to online and transactional schema evolution without the aforementioned drawbacks. We design Tesseract based on a key observation: in widely used multi-versioned database systems, schema evolution can be modeled as data modification operations that change the entire table, i.e., data-definition-as-modification (DDaM). This allows us to support schema almost "for free" by leveraging the concurrency control protocol. By simple tweaks to existing snapshot isolation protocols, on a 40-core server we show that under a variety of workloads, Tesseract is able to provide online, transactional schema evolution without service downtime, and retain high application performance when schema evolution is in progress.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".