Query optimizers based on machine learning techniques

Dissertação de mestrado integrado em Engenharia InformáticaQuery optimizers are considered one of the most relevant and sophisticated components in a database management system. However, despite currently producing nearly optimal results, optimizers rely on statistical estimates and heuristics to reduce the search space of alternative execution plans for a single query. As a result, for more complex queries, errors may grow exponentially, often translating into sub-optimal plans resulting in less than ideal performance. Recent advances in machine learning techniques have opened new opportunities for many of the existing problems related to system optimization. This document proposes a solution built on top of PostgreSQL that learns to select the most efficient set of optimizer strategy settings for a particular query. Instead of depending entirely on the optimizer’s estimates to compare different plans under different configurations, it relies on a greedy selection algorithm that supports several types of predictive modeling techniques, from more traditional modeling techniques to a deep learning approach. The system is evaluated experimentally with the standard TPC-H and Join Order ing Benchmark workloads to measure the cost and benefits of adding machine learning capabilities to traditional query optimizers.Os otimizadores de queries são considerados um dos componentes de maior relevância e complexidade num sistema de gestão de bases de dados. No entanto, apesar de atualmente produzirem resultados quase ótimos, os otimizadores dependem do uso de estimativas estatísticas e de heurísticas para reduzir o espaço de procura de planos de execução alternativos para uma determinada query. Como resultado, para queries mais complexas, os erros podem crescer exponencialmente, o que geralmente se traduz em planos sub-ótimos, resultando num desempenho inferior ao ideal. Os recentes avanços nas técnicas de aprendizagem automática abriram novas oportunidades para muitos dos problemas existentes relacionados com otimização de sistemas. Este documento propõe uma solução construída sobre o PostgreSQL que aprende a selecionar o conjunto mais eficiente de configurações do otimizador para uma determinada query. Em vez de depender inteiramente de estimativas do otimizador para comparar planos de configurações diferentes, a solução baseia-se num algoritmo de seleção greedy que suporta vários tipos de técnicas de modelagem preditiva, desde técnicas mais tradicionais a uma abordagem de deep learning. O sistema é avaliado experimentalmente com os workloads TPC-H e Join Ordering Benchmark para medir o custo e os benefícios de adicionar aprendizagem automática a otimizadores de queries tradicionais.This work is financed by National Funds through the Portuguese funding agency, FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, within project UIDB/50014/2020

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used