EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Chris Hoffmann
dblp:94/3277
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2006
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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
1 paper |
Performance modeling and evaluation · 91% Memory systems · 9% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Runtime systems and virtual machines · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis · OOPSLA 2006 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › benchmarking › benchmark design
benchmark suite design |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis · OOPSLA 2006 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis · OOPSLA 2006 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
time-series metrics · 0.1statistical metrics · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysisabstractSince benchmarks drive computer science research and industry product development, which ones we use and how we evaluate them are key questions for the community. Despite complex runtime tradeoffs due to dynamic compilation and garbage collection required for Java programs, many evaluations still use methodologies developed for C, C++, and Fortran. SPEC, the dominant purveyor of benchmarks, compounded this problem by institutionalizing these methodologies for their Java benchmark suite. This paper recommends benchmarking selection and evaluation methodologies, and introduces the DaCapo benchmarks, a set of open source, client-side Java benchmarks. We demonstrate that the complex interactions of (1) architecture, (2) compiler, (3) virtual machine, (4) memory management, and (5) application require more extensive evaluation than C, C++, and Fortran which stress (4) much less, and do not require (3). We use and introduce new value, time-series, and statistical metrics for static and dynamic properties such as code complexity, code size, heap composition, and pointer mutations. No benchmark suite is definitive, but these metrics show that DaCapo improves over SPEC Java in a variety of ways, including more complex code, richer object behaviors, and more demanding memory system requirements. This paper takes a step towards improving methodologies for choosing and evaluating benchmarks to foster innovation in system design and implementation for Java and other managed languages. Steve Blackburn, Robin Garner, Chris Hoffmann, Asjad M. Khan, Kathryn S. McKinley, Rotem Bentzur, Amer Diwan, Daniel Feinberg, Daniel Frampton, Samuel Z. Guyer, Martin Hirzel, Antony L. Hosking, Maria Jump, Han Bok Lee, J. Eliot B. Moss, Aashish Phansalkar, Darko Stefanovic, Thomas VanDrunen, Daniel von Dincklage, Ben Wiedermann |
OOPSLA | 3 |