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

Slava Chernyak

dblp:135/4670 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 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
3 papers
Data stream processing · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Distributed systems · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Data stream processing
stream processing systems
0.512021
Watermarks in Stream Processing Systems: Semantics and Comparative Analysis of Apache Flink and Google Cloud Dataflow · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2021
Data stream processing
fault tolerance
0.212013
MillWheel: Fault-Tolerant Stream Processing at Internet Scale · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013
Data stream processing › stream processing systems
low-latency stream processing
0.212013
MillWheel: Fault-Tolerant Stream Processing at Internet Scale · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
exactly-once processing
0.212013
MillWheel: Fault-Tolerant Stream Processing at Internet Scale · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013
Distributed systems
fault tolerance
0.212013
MillWheel: Fault-Tolerant Stream Processing at Internet Scale · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2013

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

cubic spline models · 0.5comparative analysis · 0.5persistent state management · 0.3directed computation graph · 0.3windowing semantics · 0.2dataflow model · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Watermarks in Stream Processing Systems: Semantics and Comparative Analysis of Apache Flink and Google Cloud Dataflow
abstract
Streaming data processing is an exercise in taming disorder: from oftentimes huge torrents of information, we hope to extract powerful and timely analyses. But when dealing with streaming data, the unbounded and temporally disordered nature of real-world streams introduces a critical challenge: how does one reason about the completeness of a stream that never ends? In this paper, we present a comprehensive definition and analysis of watermarks , a key tool for reasoning about temporal completeness in infinite streams. First, we describe what watermarks are and why they are important, highlighting how they address a suite of stream processing needs that are poorly served by eventually-consistent approaches: • Computing a single correct answer, as in notifications. • Reasoning about a lack of data, as in dip detection. • Performing non-incremental processing over temporal subsets of an infinite stream, as in statistical anomaly detection with cubic spline models. • Safely and punctually garbage collecting obsolete inputs and intermediate state. • Surfacing a reliable signal of overall pipeline health . Second, we describe, evaluate, and compare the semantically equivalent, but starkly different, watermark implementations in two modern stream processing engines: Apache Flink and Google Cloud Dataflow.
Edmon Begoli, Tyler Akidau, Slava Chernyak, Fabian Hueske, Kathryn Knight, Kenneth L. Knowles, Daniel Mills, Dan Sotolongo
Proc. VLDB Endow.3
2015 The Dataflow Model: A Practical Approach to Balancing Correctness, Latency, and Cost in Massive-Scale, Unbounded, Out-of-Order Data Processing
abstract
Unbounded, unordered, global-scale datasets are increasingly common in day-to-day business (e.g. Web logs, mobile usage statistics, and sensor networks). At the same time, consumers of these datasets have evolved sophisticated requirements, such as event-time ordering and windowing by features of the data themselves, in addition to an insatiable hunger for faster answers. Meanwhile, practicality dictates that one can never fully optimize along all dimensions of correctness, latency, and cost for these types of input. As a result, data processing practitioners are left with the quandary of how to reconcile the tensions between these seemingly competing propositions, often resulting in disparate implementations and systems. We propose that a fundamental shift of approach is necessary to deal with these evolved requirements in modern data processing. We as a field must stop trying to groom unbounded datasets into finite pools of information that eventually become complete, and instead live and breathe under the assumption that we will never know if or when we have seen all of our data, only that new data will arrive, old data may be retracted, and the only way to make this problem tractable is via principled abstractions that allow the practitioner the choice of appropriate tradeoffs along the axes of interest: correctness, latency, and cost. In this paper, we present one such approach, the Dataflow Model, along with a detailed examination of the semantics it enables, an overview of the core principles that guided its design, and a validation of the model itself via the real-world experiences that led to its development.
Tyler Akidau, Robert Bradshaw, Craig Chambers, Slava Chernyak, Rafael Fernández-Moctezuma, Reuven Lax, Sam McVeety, Daniel Mills, Frances Perry, Eric Schmidt 0001, Sam Whittle
Proc. VLDB Endow.4
2013 MillWheel: Fault-Tolerant Stream Processing at Internet Scale
abstract
MillWheel is a framework for building low-latency data-processing applications that is widely used at Google. Users specify a directed computation graph and application code for individual nodes, and the system manages persistent state and the continuous flow of records, all within the envelope of the framework's fault-tolerance guarantees. This paper describes MillWheel's programming model as well as its implementation. The case study of a continuous anomaly detector in use at Google serves to motivate how many of MillWheel's features are used. MillWheel's programming model provides a notion of logical time, making it simple to write time-based aggregations. MillWheel was designed from the outset with fault tolerance and scalability in mind. In practice, we find that MillWheel's unique combination of scalability, fault tolerance, and a versatile programming model lends itself to a wide variety of problems at Google.
Tyler Akidau, Alex Balikov, Kaya Bekiroglu, Slava Chernyak, Josh Haberman, Reuven Lax, Sam McVeety, Daniel Mills, Paul Nordstrom, Sam Whittle
Proc. VLDB Endow.4