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

Austin Lee

dblp:27/9709 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Theory of computation · 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.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Data integration and cleaning · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Cloud and datacenter computing · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Data integration and cleaning
extract-transform-load
0.712023
The Story of AWS Glue · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2023
Data integration and cleaning
metadata management
0.212023
The Story of AWS Glue · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2023
Cloud and datacenter computing › serverless computing
serverless analytics
0.212023
The Story of AWS Glue · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2023
Cloud and datacenter computing
serverless computing
0.212023
The Story of AWS Glue · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2023
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 The Design of an LLM-powered Unstructured Analytics System
Eric Anderson 0003, Jonathan Fritz, Austin Lee, Bohou Li, Mark Lindblad, Henry Lindeman, Alex Meyer, Parth Parmar, Tanvi Ranade, Mehul A. Shah, Ben Sowell, Dan Tecuci, Vinayak Thapliyal, Matt Welsh
CIDR3
2023 The Story of AWS Glue
abstract
AWS Glue is Amazon's serverless data integration cloud service that makes it simple and cost effective to extract, clean, enrich, load, and organize data. Originally launched in August 2017, AWS Glue began as an extract-transform-load (ETL) service designed to relieve developers and data engineers of the undifferentiated heavy lifting needed to load databases, data warehouses, and build data lakes on Amazon S3. Since then, it has evolved to serve a larger audience including ETL specialists and data scientists, and includes a broader suite of data integration capabilities. Today, hundreds of thousands of customers use AWS Glue every month. In this paper, we describe the use cases and challenges cloud customers face in preparing data for analytics and the tenets we chose to drive Glue's design. We chose early on to focus on ease-of-use, scale, and extensibility. At its core, Glue offers serverless Apache Spark and Python engines backed by a purpose-built resource manager for fast startup and auto-scaling. In Spark, it offers a new data structure --- DynamicFrames --- for manipulating messy schema-free semi-structured data such as event logs, a variety of transformations and tooling to simplify data preparation, and a new shuffle plugin to offload to cloud storage. It also includes a Hivemetastore compatible Data Catalog with Glue crawlers to build and manage metadata, e.g. for data lakes on Amazon S3. Finally, Glue Studio is its visual interface for authoring Spark and Python-based ETL jobs. We describe the innovations that differentiate AWS Glue and drive its popularity and how it has evolved over the years.
Mohit Saxena, Ben Sowell, Daiyan Alamgir, Nitin Bahadur, Bijay Bisht, Santosh Chandrachood, Chitti Keswani, G2 Krishnamoorthy, Austin Lee, Bohou Li, Zach Mitchell, Vaibhav Porwal, Maheedhar Reddy Chappidi, Brian Ross, Noritaka Sekiyama, Omer Zaki, Linchi Zhang, Mehul A. Shah
Proc. VLDB Endow.9
2016 Formal verification of division and square root implementations, an Oracle report
abstract
Oracle has developed new implementations for integer division and floating-point division and square root. Our task was to verify the correctness of the new designs by formally proving equivalence between the RTL for these designs and their specifications in the SPARC ISA and in the IEEE 754 Standard on floating-point arithmetic. Performing such verifications involved many steps, which we describe in this paper. The contributions of this paper are two-fold. First, this paper describes Oracle's methodology for abstracting from low-level Verilog to a high-level algorithm using the latest open-source tools. Second, this paper describes the use of interval arithmetic in the error analysis of each algorithm. Our verification efforts proved that the designs had no errors, resulted in various improvements, and reduced the lookup tables by approximately 50% (division) and 75% (square root).
David L. Rager, Jo C. Ebergen, Dmitry Nadezhin, Austin Lee, Cuong Kim Chau, Benjamin Selfridge
FMCAD4