2012
DOI: 10.1007/s00778-012-0278-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scalable and dynamically balanced shared-everything OLTP with physiological partitioning

Abstract: Scaling the performance of shared-everything transaction processing systems to highly parallel multicore hardware remains a challenge for database system designers. Recent proposals alleviate locking and logging bottlenecks in the system, leaving page latching as the next potential problem. To tackle the page latching problem, we propose physiological partitioning (PLP). PLP applies logical-only partitioning, maintaining the desired properties of sharedeverything designs, and introduces a multi-rooted B+Tree i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The scenario turns out to be an optimisation problem and mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) solver is used to find an optimal answer. By logically partitioning the physical data accesses, [16] propose physiological partitioning (PLP)-a transaction processing approach where physical access to database pages and indexes are continuously repartitioned and maintain load-balance based on data access patterns. However, applications that have less impact on the underlying storages can be penalised as mentioned by the authors, and understanding the directional flow and dependencies of data access for each transactions can be a costly operation.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The scenario turns out to be an optimisation problem and mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) solver is used to find an optimal answer. By logically partitioning the physical data accesses, [16] propose physiological partitioning (PLP)-a transaction processing approach where physical access to database pages and indexes are continuously repartitioned and maintain load-balance based on data access patterns. However, applications that have less impact on the underlying storages can be penalised as mentioned by the authors, and understanding the directional flow and dependencies of data access for each transactions can be a costly operation.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whenever multiple instances must collectively process a request, shared-nothing databases require expensive distributed consensus protocols, such as two-phase commit, which many argue are inherently non-scalable [12,24]. Similarly, handling data and access skew is problematic [61].…”
Section: Shared-nothing Database Deploymentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Practitioners report that even commercial shared-everything systems with support for nonuniform memory architectures (NUMA) are hard to tune for modern servers [25,14,70]. On the other hand, sharednothing deployments [57] face the challenges of (a) higher execution costs when distributed transactions are required [12,16,24,50], even within a single node, particularly if the communication occurs between slower links (e.g., across CPU sockets); and (b) load imbalances due to skew [61].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, one of the recent proposals for adaptive repartitioning algorithms targets physiologically partitioned shared-everything systems [18]. The load on each partition is monitored using histograms and work queues.…”
Section: B Data Partitioning Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 99%