Multidimensional Range Queries on Modern Hardware

Range queries over multidimensional data are an important part of database workloads in many applications. Their execution may be accelerated by using multidimensional index structures (MDIS), such as kd-trees or R-trees. As for most index structures, the usefulness of this approach depends on the selectivity of the queries, and common wisdom told that a simple scan beats MDIS for queries accessing more than 15%-20% of a dataset. However, this wisdom is largely based on evaluations that are almost two decades old, performed on data being held on disks, applying IO-optimized data structures, and using single-core systems. The question is whether this rule of thumb still holds when multidimensional range queries (MDRQ) are performed on modern architectures with large main memories holding all data, multi-core CPUs and data-parallel instruction sets. In this paper, we study the question whether and how much modern hardware influences the performance ratio between index structures and scans for MDRQ. To this end, we conservatively adapted three popular MDIS, namely the R*-tree, the kd-tree, and the VA-file, to exploit features of modern servers and compared their performance to different flavors of parallel scans using multiple (synthetic and real-world) analytical workloads over multiple (synthetic and real-world) datasets of varying size, dimensionality, and skew. We find that all approaches benefit considerably from using main memory and parallelization, yet to varying degrees. Our evaluation indicates that, on current machines, scanning should be favored over parallel versions of classical MDIS even for very selective queries

PlinyCompute: A Platform for High-Performance, Distributed, Data-Intensive Tool Development

This paper describes PlinyCompute, a system for development of high-performance, data-intensive, distributed computing tools and libraries. In the large, PlinyCompute presents the programmer with a very high-level, declarative interface, relying on automatic, relational-database style optimization to figure out how to stage distributed computations. However, in the small, PlinyCompute presents the capable systems programmer with a persistent object data model and API (the "PC object model") and associated memory management system that has been designed from the ground-up for high performance, distributed, data-intensive computing. This contrasts with most other Big Data systems, which are constructed on top of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), and hence must at least partially cede performance-critical concerns such as memory management (including layout and de/allocation) and virtual method/function dispatch to the JVM. This hybrid approach---declarative in the large, trusting the programmer's ability to utilize PC object model efficiently in the small---results in a system that is ideal for the development of reusable, data-intensive tools and libraries. Through extensive benchmarking, we show that implementing complex objects manipulation and non-trivial, library-style computations on top of PlinyCompute can result in a speedup of 2x to more than 50x or more compared to equivalent implementations on Spark.Comment: 48 pages, including references and Appendi

A general framework for positioning, evaluating and selecting the new generation of development tools.

This paper focuses on the evaluation and positioning of a new generation of development tools containing subtools (report generators, browsers, debuggers, GUI-builders, ...) and programming languages that are designed to work together and have a common graphical user interface and are therefore called environments. Several trends in IT have led to a pluriform range of developments tools that can be classified in numerous categories. Examples are: object-oriented tools, GUI-tools, upper- and lower CASE-tools, client/server tools and 4GL environments. This classification does not sufficiently cover the tools subject in this paper for the simple reason that only one criterion is used to distinguish them. Modern visual development environments often fit in several categories because to a certain extent, several criteria can be applied to evaluate them. In this study, we will offer a broad classification scheme with which tools can be positioned and which can be refined through further research.