Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Vitaly Khait
dblp:148/1326
· DBLP profile ↗
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
Systems, architecture and hardware · 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.
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Distributed computing theory · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Distributed computing theory › concurrent objects
wait-free implementation |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Complexity tradeoffs for read and update operations · PODC 2014 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Complexity tradeoffs for read and update operationsabstractRecent work established that some restricted-use objects, such as max registers, counters and atomic snapshots, admit polylogarithmic step-/complexity wait-free implementations using only reads and writes: when only polynomially-many updates are allowed, reading the object (by performing a ReadMax, CounterRead or Scan operation, depending on the object's type) incurs O(log N) steps (where N is the number of processes), which was shown to be optimal. But what about the step-/complexity of update operations? With these implementations, updating the object's state (by performing a WriteMax, Counter Increment or Update operation, depending on the object's type) requires Ω(log N) steps. The question that we address in this work is the following: are there read-optimal implementations of these restricted-use objects for which the asymptotic step-/complexity of update operations is sub-logarithmic? Danny Hendler, Vitaly Khait |
PODC | 2 |