ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
What makes the differences: benchmarking XML database implementations
Full text PdfPdf (589 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) archive
Volume 5 ,  Issue 1  (February 2005) table of contents
Pages: 154 - 194  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISSN:1533-5399
Authors
Hongjun Lu  The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
Jeffrey Xu Yu  The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Guoren Wang  Northeastern University, Shenyang, China
Shihui Zheng  Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Haifeng Jiang  The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
Ge Yu  Northeastern University, Shenyang, China
Aoying Zhou  Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 46,   Downloads (12 Months): 301,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1052934.1052940
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

XML is emerging as a major standard for representing data on the World Wide Web. Recently, many XML storage models have been proposed to manage XML data. In order to assess an XML database's abilities to deal with XML queries, several benchmarks have also been proposed, including XMark and XMach. However, no reported studies using those benchmarks were found that can provide users with insights on the impacts of a variety of storage models on XML query performance. In this article, we report our first set of results on benchmarking a set of XML database implementations using two XML benchmarks. The selected implementations represent a wide range of approaches, including RDBMS-based systems with document-independent and document-dependent XML-relational schema mapping approaches, and XML native engines based on an Object-Oriented Model and the Document Object Model. Comprehensive experiments were conducted to study relative performance of different approaches and the important issues that affect XML query performance, such as path expression query processing, effectiveness of various partitioning, label-path, and indexing structures.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Abiteboul, S., Quass, D., McHugh, J., Widom, J., and Wiener, J. L. 1997. The Lorel query language for semistructured data. International Journal on Digital Libraries 1, 1, 68--88.
 
2
 
3
Berglund, A., Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernandez, M. F., Kay, M., Robie, J., and Simeon, J. 2002. XML path language (XPath) 2.0. Tech. rep.
 
4
Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernandez, M. F., Florescu, D., Robie, J., and Simeon, J. 2002. XQuery 1.0: An XML query language. In W3C Working Draft 16 August 2002.
 
5
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
Chien, S. Y., Vagena, Z., Zhang, D., Tsotras, V., and Zaniolo, C. 2002. Efficient structural joins on indexed XML documents. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. Hong Kong, China. 263--274.
11
 
12
13
14
 
15
Florescu, D. and Kossmann, D. 1999. A performance evaluation of alternative mapping schemes for storing XML data in a relational database. Survey report.
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
22
 
23
24
 
25
26
 
27
 
28
Schmidt, A., Waas, F., Kersten, M., Carey, M. J., Manolescu, I., and Busse, R. 2002. Xmark: A benchmark for XML data management. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. (Hong Kong, China). 974--985.
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
32
Tian, F., DeWitt, D. J., Chen, J., and Zhang, C. 2000. The design and performance evaluation of altervative XML storage strategies. Tech. rep., Computer Science Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
 
33
W3C. Document object model (DOM). http://www.w3.org/DOM/.
 
34
35
36
 
37


Collaborative Colleagues:
Hongjun Lu: colleagues
Jeffrey Xu Yu: colleagues
Guoren Wang: colleagues
Shihui Zheng: colleagues
Haifeng Jiang: colleagues
Ge Yu: colleagues
Aoying Zhou: colleagues