|
ABSTRACT
The state of the art commercial query optimizers employ cost-based optimization and exploit dynamic programming (DP) to find the optimal query execution plan (QEP) without evaluating redundant sub-plans. The number of alternative QEPs enumerated by the DP query optimizer can increase exponentially, as the number of joins in the query increases. Recently, by exploiting the coming wave of multi-core processor architectures, a state of the art parallel optimization algorithm [14], referred to as PDPsva, has been proposed to parallelize the "time-consuming" DP query optimization process itself. While PDPsva significantly extends the practical use of DP to queries having up to 20-25 tables, it has several limitations: 1) supporting only the size-driven DP enumerator, 2) statically allocating search space, and 3) not fully exploiting parallelism. In this paper, we propose the first generic solution for parallelizing any type of bottom-up optimizer, including the graph-traversal driven type, and for supporting dynamic search allocation and full parallelism. This is a challenging problem, since recently developed, state of art DP optimizers such as DPcpp [21] and DPhyp [22] are very difficult to parallelize due to tangled dependencies in the join pairs they generate. Unless the solution is very carefully devised, a lot of synchronization conflicts are bound to occur. By viewing a serial bottom-up optimizer as one which generates a totally ordered sequence of join pairs in a streaming fashion, we propose a novel concept of dependency-aware reordering, which minimizes waiting time caused by dependencies of join pairs. To maximize parallelism, we also introduce a series of novel performance optimization techniques: 1) pipelining of join pair generation and plan generation; 2) the synchronization-free global MEMO; and 3) threading across dependencies. Through extensive experiments with various query topologies, we show that our solution supports any type of bottom up optimization, achieving linear speedup for each type. Despite the fact that our solution is generic, due to sophisticated optimization techniques, our generic parallel optimizer outperforms PDPsva tailored to size-driven enumeration. Experimental results also show that our solution is much more robust than PDPsva with respect to search space allocation.
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
|
|
| |
2
|
|
 |
3
|
|
| |
4
|
K. P. Bennett, M. C. Ferris, and Y. E. Ioannidis. A genetic algorithm for database query optimization. In ICGA, 1991.
|
 |
5
|
|
 |
6
|
|
 |
7
|
Chandra Chekuri , Waqar Hasan , Rajeev Motwani, Scheduling problems in parallel query optimization, Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems, p.255-265, May 22-25, 1995, San Jose, California, United States
[doi> 10.1145/212433.212471]
|
| |
8
|
|
| |
9
|
|
 |
10
|
|
| |
11
|
J. Erickson. Multicore and gpus: One tool, two processors. Dr. Dobb's Journal, 2007, http://www.ddj.com/hpc-highperformance-computing/199501192.
|
| |
12
|
M. B. et al. Pam: a novel performance/power aware meta-scheduler for multi-core systems. In SC, 2008.
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
|
| |
15
|
W.-S. Han and J. Lee. Dependency-Aware Reordering for Parallelizing Query Optimization in Multi-Core CPUs. http://wshan.org/HanL09Reordering.pdf.
|
| |
16
|
|
| |
17
|
S.-H. S. Huang, H. Liu, and V. Viswanathan. Parallel dynamic programming. IEEE TPDS, 5(3), 1994.
|
 |
18
|
Ihab F. Ilyas , Jun Rao , Guy Lohman , Dengfeng Gao , Eileen Lin, Estimating compilation time of a query optimizer, Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, June 09-12, 2003, San Diego, California
[doi> 10.1145/872757.872803]
|
 |
19
|
|
| |
20
|
|
| |
21
|
|
 |
22
|
|
| |
23
|
|
| |
24
|
|
| |
25
|
|
| |
26
|
Postgresql version 8.3. http://www.postgresql.org.
|
| |
27
|
|
| |
28
|
|
| |
29
|
P. Stenstrom. Ipdps panel: Is the multi-core roadmap going to live up to its promises? IPDPS, 2007.
|
 |
30
|
|
 |
31
|
|
 |
32
|
|
 |
33
|
|
 |
34
|
|
| |
35
|
D. Wentzlaff and A. Agarwal. The Case for a Factored Operating System (fos). http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/42894
|
|