TPC-H Analyzed: Hidden Messages and Lessons Learned from an Influential Benchmark

  • Peter Boncz
  • Thomas Neumann
  • Orri Erling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8391)

Abstract

The TPC-D benchmark was developed almost 20 years ago, and even though its current existence as TPC-H could be considered superseded by TPC-DS, one can still learn from it. We focus on the technical level, summarizing the challenges posed by the TPC-H workload as we now understand them, which we call “choke points”. We identify 28 different such choke points, grouped into six categories: Aggregation Performance, Join Performance, Data Access Locality, Expression Calculation, Correlated Subqueries and Parallel Execution. On the meta-level, we make the point that the rich set of choke-points found in TPC-H sets an example on how to design future DBMS benchmarks.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Huppler, K.: The art of building a good benchmark. In: Nambiar, R., Poess, M. (eds.) TPCTC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5895, pp. 18–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nambiar, R.O., Poess, M.: The making of TPC-DS. In: VLDB, pp. 1049–1058 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simmen, D.E., Shekita, E.J., Malkemus, T.: Fundamental techniques for order optimization. In: Jagadish, H.V., Mumick, I.S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 4-6, pp. 57–67. ACM Press (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moerkotte, G., Neumann, T.: Accelerating queries with group-by and join by groupjoin. PVLDB 4, 843–851 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graefe, G.: Query evaluation techniques for large databases. ACM Comput. Surv. 25, 73–170 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neumann, T., Weikum, G.: Scalable join processing on very large rdf graphs. In: Proceedings of the 35th SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 627–640. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao, J., Lindsay, B., Lohman, G., Pirahesh, H., Simmen, D.: Using EELs: A practical approach to outerjoin and antijoin reordering. In: ICDE, pp. 595–606 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moerkotte, G., Neumann, T.: Dynamic programming strikes back. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 539–552 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ilyas, I.F., Markl, V., Haas, P.J., Brown, P., Aboulnaga, A.: Cords: Automatic discovery of correlations and soft functional dependencies. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 647–658 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moerkotte, G.: Small materialized aggregates: A light weight index structure for data warehousing. In: VLDB, pp. 476–487 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zukowski, M., Nes, N., Boncz, P.A.: DSM vs. NSM: Cpu performance tradeoffs in block-oriented query processing. In: DaMoN, pp. 47–54 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abadi, D.J.: Query execution in column-oriented database systems. MIT PhD Dissertation (2008) PhD ThesisGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abadi, D.J., Madden, S., Hachem, N.: Column-stores vs. row-stores: how different are they really? In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 967–980 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li, Q., Shao, M., Markl, V., Beyer, K.S., Colby, L.S., Lohman, G.M.: Adaptively reordering joins during query execution. In: ICDE, pp. 26–35 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seshadri, P., Pirahesh, H., Leung, T.Y.C.: Complex query decorrelation. In: ICDE, pp. 450–458 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neumann, T., Moerkotte, G.: A framework for reasoning about share equivalence and its integration into a plan generator. In: BTW, pp. 7–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balkesen, C., Teubner, J., Alonso, G., Özsu, M.T.: Main-memory hash joins on multi-core cpus: Tuning to the underlying hardware. In: ICDE (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nagel, F., Boncz, P., Viglas, S.D.: Recycling in pipelined query evaluation. In: ICDE (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Boncz
    • 1
  • Thomas Neumann
    • 2
  • Orri Erling
    • 3
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Technical University MunichGermany
  3. 3.Openlink SoftwareUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations