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

Tyler Akidau

dblp:135/4692 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0009-0003-2446-300XORCID · corroborated

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 5 · 3 first-author · 2 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
5 papers
Data stream processing · 52% Query processing and optimization · 38% Data models and query languages · 10%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Distributed systems · 100%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Query processing and optimization
incremental computation
0.712023
What's the Difference? Incremental Processing with Change Queries in Snowflake · Proc. ACM Manag. Data 2023
Query processing and optimization › view maintenance
incremental view maintenance
0.712023
What's the Difference? Incremental Processing with Change Queries in Snowflake · Proc. ACM Manag. Data 2023
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 models and query languages › SQL
SQL extension
0.412019
One SQL to Rule Them All - an Efficient and Syntactically Idiomatic Approach to Management of Streams and Tables · SIGMOD Conference 2019
Data stream processing › continuous query processing
streaming SQL
0.412019
One SQL to Rule Them All - an Efficient and Syntactically Idiomatic Approach to Management of Streams and Tables · SIGMOD Conference 2019
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

stream objects · 0.7DML · 0.7cubic spline models · 0.5comparative analysis · 0.5persistent state management · 0.3directed computation graph · 0.3windowing semantics · 0.2dataflow model · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 What's the Difference? Incremental Processing with Change Queries in Snowflake
abstract
Incremental algorithms are the heart and soul of stream processing. Low latency results depend on the ability to react to the subset of changes in a dataset over time rather than reprocessing the entirety of a dataset as it evolves. But while the SQL language is well suited for representing streams of changes (via tables) and their application to tables over time (via DML), it entirely lacks a method to query the changes to a table or view in the first place. In this paper, we present CHANGES queries and STREAM objects, Snowflake's primitives for querying and consuming incremental changes to table objects over time. CHANGES queries and STREAMs have been in use within Snowflake for three years, and see broad adoption across our customers. We describe the semantics of these primitives, discuss the implementation challenges, present an analysis of their usage at Snowflake, and contrast with other offerings.
Tyler Akidau, Paul Barbier, Istvan Cseri, Fabian Hueske, Tyler Jones, Sasha Lionheart, Daniel Mills, Dzmitry Pauliukevich, Lukas Probst, Niklas Semmler, Dan Sotolongo, Boyuan Zhang 0004
Proc. ACM Manag. Data1
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.2
2019 One SQL to Rule Them All - an Efficient and Syntactically Idiomatic Approach to Management of Streams and Tables
abstract
Real-time data analysis and management are increasingly critical for today's businesses. SQL is the de facto lingua franca for these endeavors, yet support for robust streaming analysis and management with SQL remains limited. Many approaches restrict semantics to a reduced subset of features and/or require a suite of non-standard constructs. Additionally, use of event timestamps to provide native support for analyzing events according to when they actually occurred is not pervasive, and often comes with important limitations. We present a three-part proposal for integrating robust streaming into SQL, namely: (1) time-varying relations as a foundation for classical tables as well as streaming data, (2) event time semantics, (3) a limited set of optional keyword extensions to control the materialization of time-varying query results. We show how with these minimal additions it is possible to utilize the complete suite of standard SQL semantics to perform robust stream processing. We motivate and illustrate these concepts using examples and describe lessons learned from implementations in Apache Calcite, Apache Flink, and Apache Beam. We conclude with syntax and semantics of a concrete proposal for extensions of the SQL standard and note further areas of exploration.
Edmon Begoli, Tyler Akidau, Fabian Hueske, Julian Hyde, Kathryn Knight, Kenneth L. Knowles
SIGMOD Conference2
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.1
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.1