, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 193–202 | Cite as

Query Optimization in Heterogenous Event Processing Federations

  • Marcus PinneckeEmail author
  • Bastian Hoßbach


Continuous processing of event streams evolved to an important class of data management over the last years and will become even more important due to novel applications such as the Internet of Things. Because systems for data stream and event processing have been developed independent of each other, often in competition and without the existence of any standards, the Stream Processing System (SPS) landscape is extremely heterogeneous today. To overcome the problems caused by this heterogeneity, a novel event processing middleware, the Java Event Processing Connectivity (JEPC), has been presented recently. However, despite the fact that SPSs can be accessed uniformly using JEPC, their different performance profiles caused by different algorithms and implementations remain. This gives the opportunity to query optimization, because individual system strengths can be exploited. In this paper, we present a novel query optimizer that exploits the technical heterogeneity in a federation of different unified SPSs. Taking into account different performance profiles of SPSs, we address query plan partitioning, candidate selection, and reducing inter-system communication in order to improve the overall query performance. We suggest a heuristic that finds a good initial mapping of sub-plans to a set of heterogenous SPSs. An experimental evaluation clearly shows that heterogeneous federations outperform homogeneous federations, in general, and that our heuristic performs well in practice.


Federated Information Systems Data Stream Processing Query Optimization Heuristics 



This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) under grant no. 16BY1206A.


  1. 1.
    Abadi D et al (2005) The design of the Borealis stream processing engine. CIDR 277–289Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgärtner L et al (2015) Complex event processing for reactive security monitoring in virtualized computer systems. DEBS 22–33Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botan I et al (2010) A demonstration of the MaxStream federated stream processing system. ICDE 1093–1096Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dindar N, Tatbul N, Miller R, Haas L, Botan I (2013) Modeling the execution semantics of stream processing engines with SECRET. VLDB J 22(4):421–446Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gulisano V, Jimenez-Peris R, Patino-Martinez M, Soriente C, Valduriez P (2012) StreamCloud: an elastic and scalable data streaming system. TPDS 23(12):2351–2365Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoßbach B (2015) Design and implementation of a middleware for uniform, federated and dynamic event processing. PhD thesis, University of MarburgGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoßbach B, Seeger B (2013) Anomaly management using complex event processing. EDBT 149–154Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoßbach B, Freisleben B, Seeger B (2012) Reaktives cloud monitoring mit complex event processing. Datenbank Spektrum 12(1):33–42Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoßbach B, Glombiewski N, Morgen A, Ritter F, Seeger B (2013) JEPC: the java event processing connectivity. Datenbank Spektrum 13(3):167–178Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jain N et al (2008) Towards a streaming SQL standard. PVLDB 1(2):1379–1390Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krämer J, Seeger S (2009) Semantics and implementation of continuous sliding window queries over data streams. ACM Trans Database Syst 34(1): 4:1–4:49Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim H, Han Y, Babu S (2013) How to fit when no one size fits. CIDRGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Opher E (2010) Event processing: past, present and future. PVLDB 3(1–2):1651–1652Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park Y, King R, Nathan S, Most W, Andrade H (2011) Evaluation of a high-volume, low-latency market data processing system implemented with IBM middleware. Softw Pract Exper 42(1):37–56Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patroumpas K, Sellis T (2012) Event processing and real-time monitoring over streaming traffic data. W2GIS 116–133Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinnecke M (2015) Konzept und prototypische Implementierung eines föderativen Complex Event Processing Systems mit Operatorverteilung. BTW Workshops 233–242Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheth A, Larson J (1990) Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. CSUR 22(3):183–236Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tatbul N (2010) Streaming data integration: challenges and opportunities. ICDEW 155–158Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu K et al (2007) Challenges and experience in prototyping a multi-modal stream analytic and monitoring application on system S. VLDB 1185–1196Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Database Research GroupUniversity of MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations