Advertisement

’Favourite’ SQL-statements — An empirical analysis of SQL-usage in commercial applications

  • Richard Pönighaus
Query Processing
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1006)

Abstract

An empirical study investigates usage of SQL in commercial applications of three large Austrian companies. Based on 38,000 statements we analyse the practical meaning of the DML-Part of SQL language constructs. A cost-efficient method of data collection for IBM-DB2 environments is described. We also propose a simple complexity scheme for classifying SQL statements and apply it to our data. Some of our findings are compared with SQL-features used in standard database benchmarks. Since empirical but non-laboratory results in this area are rare this study may be of general interest to the database community.

Keywords

Database Languages Empirical Study Commercial Applications Database Benchmarks Statement Complexity Software Quality Assurance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. F. Cardenas, “Evaluation and Selection of File Organization — A Model and System”, Com. ACM, Vol. 16 No. 9, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. J. Date, Colin J. White, A Guide to DBS. Second Edition, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mass., 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. J. Date, A Guide to the SQL Standard, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mass., 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IBM Database 2 Version 2. Reference Summary. Release 2, IBM form no. SX26-3771-1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. J. DeWitt, “The Wisconsin Benchmark: Past, Present, and Future”, in [6].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gray (ed.), The Benchmark Handbook for Database and Transaction Processing Systems, 2nd edition, San Mateo California, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Lu, H. C. Chan, K. K. Wei, “A Survey on Usage of SQL”, ACM-SIGMOD, Dec.1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. E. O'Neil, “The Set Query Benchmark”, in [6].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Pönighaus, Performance-Prognosen für relationale Datenbankmanagementsysteme, Diss., Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. Dec. 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC), “TPC Benchmark™A. Standard Specification — Revision 1.1” in [6].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC), “TPC Benchmark™B. Standard Specification — Revision 1.1” in [6].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC), “TPC Benchmark™C. Standard Specification — Revision 1.0” in [6].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Turbyfill, Comparative Benchmarking of Relational Database Systems, Diss., Cornell Univ. 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Turbyfill, C. Orji, D. Bitton, “ AS3AP: An Ansi SQL Standard Scaleable and Portable Benchmark for Relational Systems” in [6].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. B. Yao, A. R. Hevner, A Guide to Performance Evaluation of Database Systems, Editor: D. R. Benigni, National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 500-118, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. B. Yao, A. R. Hevner, H. Y. Myers, “Analysis of Database System Architectures Using Benchmarks”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 13 No.6, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Information Processing and Information Economics, Department of Applied Computer ScienceVienna University of Economics and Business AdministrationAustria

Personalised recommendations