Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ariel Weisberg

dblp:131/4488 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Transaction processing and concurrency control · 87% Database system architecture and tuning · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Transaction processing and concurrency control
recovery
0.212014
Rethinking main memory OLTP recovery · ICDE 2014
Transaction processing and concurrency control › recovery
write-ahead logging
0.212014
Rethinking main memory OLTP recovery · ICDE 2014
Database system architecture and tuning
main-memory database
0.112014
Rethinking main memory OLTP recovery · ICDE 2014

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

command replay · 0.2checkpointing · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Rethinking main memory OLTP recovery
abstract
Fine-grained, record-oriented write-ahead logging, as exemplified by systems like ARIES, has been the gold standard for relational database recovery. In this paper, we show that in modern high-throughput transaction processing systems, this is no longer the optimal way to recover a database system. In particular, as transaction throughputs get higher, ARIES-style logging starts to represent a non-trivial fraction of the overall transaction execution time. We propose a lighter weight, coarse-grained command logging technique which only records the transactions that were executed on the database. It then does recovery by starting from a transactionally consistent checkpoint and replaying the commands in the log as if they were new transactions. By avoiding the overhead of fine-grained logging of before and after images (both CPU complexity as well as substantial associated 110), command logging can yield significantly higher throughput at run-time. Recovery times for command logging are higher compared to an ARIEs-style physiological logging approach, but with the advent of high-availability techniques that can mask the outage of a recovering node, recovery speeds have become secondary in importance to run-time performance for most applications. We evaluated our approach on an implementation of TPCC in a main memory database system (VoltDB), and found that command logging can offer 1.5 x higher throughput than a main-memory optimized implementation of ARIEs-style physiological logging.
Nirmesh Malviya, Ariel Weisberg, Samuel Madden 0001, Michael Stonebraker
ICDE2