Peter Byrne

dblp:13/2425 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 1 since 2021

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
2 papers
Transaction processing and concurrency control · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Cloud and datacenter computing · 75% Distributed systems · 25%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Transaction processing and concurrency control › concurrency control
multiversion concurrency control
1.122024
Optimized Locking in SQL Azure · ICDE 2024
Constant Time Recovery in Azure SQL Database · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2019
Transaction processing and concurrency control › concurrency control
locking
0.812024
Optimized Locking in SQL Azure · ICDE 2024
Transaction processing and concurrency control › isolation levels
snapshot isolation
0.812024
Optimized Locking in SQL Azure · ICDE 2024
Transaction processing and concurrency control
recovery
0.412019
Constant Time Recovery in Azure SQL Database · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2019
Cloud and datacenter computing
database-as-a-service
0.322024
Optimized Locking in SQL Azure · ICDE 2024
Constant Time Recovery in Azure SQL Database · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2019
Distributed systems
database availability
0.112019
Constant Time Recovery in Azure SQL Database · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2019

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

ARIES recovery · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Optimized Locking in SQL Azure
abstract
SQL Azure's concurrency control relies on multi-versioning to prevent readers and writers from blocking each other and on in-memory row locks to prevent multiple writers modifying the same row. If the number of in-memory locks exceeds a threshold, then to reduce memory used for locking, table-level lock escalation occurs which severely reduces concurrency. This paper presents a technique called transaction-id locking that drastically reduces the number of in-memory locks and eliminates lock escalation. It also describes another technique called lock after qualification where rows are qualified without locking thereby letting concurrent transactions interested in mutually exclusive sets of rows execute without blocking each other. Optimized locking combines these two techniques with the prior scheme of in-memory row locks. This combination to improve common isolation levels (like Read Committed Snapshot Isolation) while retaining support for Serializable isolation level in a developer-friendly manner distinguishes this work from prior art. The paper presents in detail this new scheme which required changes in both the storage engine and the query processing engine. It also presents the results of deploying optimized locking to more than eleven million SQL databases in Azure.
Chaitanya Sreenivas Ravella, Prashanth Purnananda, Hanuma Kodavalla, Peter Byrne, Adrian-Leonard Radu, Wayne Chen, Srikanth Sampath, Naga Bhavana Atluri, Srinag Rao, Priyanka Kakade
ICDE4
2019 Constant Time Recovery in Azure SQL Database
abstract
Azure SQL Database and the upcoming release of SQL Server introduce a novel database recovery mechanism that combines traditional ARIES recovery with multi-version concurrency control to achieve database recovery in constant time, regardless of the size of user transactions. Additionally, our algorithm enables continuous transaction log truncation, even in the presence of long running transactions, thereby allowing large data modifications using only a small, constant amount of log space. These capabilities are particularly important for any Cloud database service given a) the constantly increasing database sizes, b) the frequent failures of commodity hardware, c) the strict availability requirements of modern, global applications and d) the fact that software upgrades and other maintenance tasks are managed by the Cloud platform, introducing unexpected failures for the users. This paper describes the design of our recovery algorithm and demonstrates how it allowed us to improve the availability of Azure SQL Database by guaranteeing consistent recovery times of under 3 minutes for 99.999% of recovery cases in production.
Panagiotis Antonopoulos, Peter Byrne, Wayne Chen, Cristian Diaconu, Raghavendra Thallam Kodandaramaih, Hanuma Kodavalla, Prashanth Purnananda, Adrian-Leonard Radu, Chaitanya Sreenivas Ravella, Girish Mittur Venkataramanappa
Proc. VLDB Endow.2