EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Georgios Chatzopoulos
dblp:175/6596
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0002-2802-9070ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-authorDatabases, 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.
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
3 papers |
Distributed systems · 68% Performance modeling and evaluation · 15% Parallel and multicore computing · 13% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Transaction processing and concurrency control · 100% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Transaction processing and concurrency control
distributed transaction processing |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fast General Distributed Transactions with Opacity · SIGMOD Conference 2019 |
Transaction processing and concurrency control › serializability
strict serializability |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fast General Distributed Transactions with Opacity · SIGMOD Conference 2019 |
Distributed systems
fault tolerance |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fast General Distributed Transactions with Opacity · SIGMOD Conference 2019 |
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
high availability |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fast General Distributed Transactions with Opacity · SIGMOD Conference 2019 |
Distributed systems
replication |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fast General Distributed Transactions with Opacity · SIGMOD Conference 2019 |
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
transparent fault tolerance |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fast General Distributed Transactions with Opacity · SIGMOD Conference 2019 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › performance prediction
scalability prediction |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | ESTIMA: extrapolating scalability of in-memory applications · PPoPP 2016 |
High-performance computing › performance engineering
performance portability |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Abstracting Multi-Core Topologies with MCTOP · EuroSys 2017 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | ESTIMA: extrapolating scalability of in-memory applications · PPoPP 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
timestamp ordering · 0.8failover protocol · 0.8clock synchronization · 0.8topology abstraction · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Fast General Distributed Transactions with OpacityabstractTransactions can simplify distributed applications by hiding data distribution, concurrency, and failures from the application developer. Ideally the developer would see the abstraction of a single large machine that runs transactions sequentially and never fails. This requires the transactional subsystem to provide opacity (strict serializability for both committed and aborted transactions), as well as transparent fault tolerance with high availability. As even the best abstractions are unlikely to be used if they perform poorly, the system must also provide high performance. Existing distributed transactional designs either weaken this abstraction or are not designed for the best performance within a data center. This paper extends the design of FaRM --- which provides strict serializability only for committed transactions --- to provide opacity while maintaining FaRM's high throughput, low latency, and high availability within a modern data center. It uses timestamp ordering based on real time with clocks synchronized to within tens of microseconds across a cluster, and a failover protocol to ensure correctness across clock master failures. FaRM with opacity can commit 5.4 million neworder transactions per second when running the TPC-C transaction mix on 90 machines with 3-way replication. Alex Shamis, Matthew Renzelmann, Stanko Novakovic, Georgios Chatzopoulos, Aleksandar Dragojevic, Dushyanth Narayanan, Miguel Castro 0001 |
SIGMOD Conference | 4 |
| 2018 | SPADE: Tuning scale-out OLTP on modern RDMA clusters
Georgios Chatzopoulos, Aleksandar Dragojevic, Rachid Guerraoui |
Middleware | 1 |
| 2017 | Abstracting Multi-Core Topologies with MCTOPabstractPortability and efficiency are usually antagonists in multi-core computing. In order to develop efficient code, one needs to take into account the topology of the target multi-cores (e.g., for locality). This clearly hampers code portability. In this paper, we show that you can have the cake and eat it too. Georgios Chatzopoulos, Rachid Guerraoui, Tim Harris 0001, Vasileios Trigonakis |
EuroSys | 1 |
| 2016 | Locking Made Easy
Jelena Antic, Georgios Chatzopoulos, Rachid Guerraoui, Vasileios Trigonakis |
Middleware | 2 |
| 2016 | ESTIMA: extrapolating scalability of in-memory applicationsabstractThis paper presents ESTIMA, an easy-to-use tool for extrapolating the scalability of in-memory applications. ESTIMA is designed to perform a simple, yet important task: given the performance of an application on a small machine with a handful of cores, ESTIMA extrapolates its scalability to a larger machine with more cores, while requiring minimum input from the user. The key idea underlying ESTIMA is the use of stalled cycles (e.g. cycles that the processor spends waiting for various events, such as cache misses or waiting on a lock). ESTIMA measures stalled cycles on a few cores and extrapolates them to more cores, estimating the amount of waiting in the system. ESTIMA can be effectively used to predict the scalability of in-memory applications. For instance, using measurements of memcached and SQLite on a desktop machine, we obtain accurate predictions of their scalability on a server. Our extensive evaluation on a large number of in-memory benchmarks shows that ESTIMA has generally low prediction errors. Georgios Chatzopoulos, Aleksandar Dragojevic, Rachid Guerraoui |
PPoPP | 1 |