Multi-versioned database systems have the potential to significantly increase the amount of concurrency in transaction processing because they can avoid read-write conflicts. Unfortunately, the increase in concurrency usually comes at the cost of transaction serializability. If a database user requests full serializability, modern multi-versioned systems significantly constrain read-write concurrency among conflicting transactions and employ expensive synchronization patterns in their design. In main-memory multi-core settings, these additional constraints are so burdensome that multi-versioned systems are often significantly outperformed by single-version systems. We propose Bohm, a new concurrency control protocol for main-memory multi-versioned database systems. Bohm guarantees serializable execution while ensuring that reads never block writes. In addition, Bohm does not require reads to perform any book-keeping whatsoever, thereby avoiding the overhead of tracking reads via contended writes to shared memory. This leads to excellent scalability and performance in multi-core settings. Bohm has all the above characteristics without performing validation based concurrency control. Instead, it is pessimistic, and is therefore not prone to excessive aborts in the presence of contention. An experimental evaluation shows that Bohm performs well in both high contention and low contention settings, and is able to dramatically outperform state-of-the-art multi-versioned systems despite maintaining the full set of serializability guarantees.
H-Store @cite_22 uses a shared-nothing architecture consisting of single-threaded partitions in order reduce the impact of lock-manager overhead @cite_3 , and logging overhead @cite_24 . However, performance degrades rapidly if a workload contains multi-partition transactions. Furthermore, sub-optimal performance is observed if some partitions have more work to do than others. achieves scalability without doing a hard-partitioning of the data --- it is thus less susceptible to skew problems and does not suffer from the multi-partition transaction problem.
@cite_24 @cite_22 @cite_3
2071414195 1577169013 2054075931
Fine-grained, record-oriented write-ahead logging, as exemplified by systems like ARIES, has been the gold standard for relational database recovery. In this paper, we show that in modern high-throughput transaction processing systems, this is no longer the optimal way to recover a database system. In particular, as transaction throughputs get higher, ARIES-style logging starts to represent a non-trivial fraction of the overall transaction execution time. In previous papers [SC05, SBC+07], some of us predicted the end of "one size fits all" as a commercial relational DBMS paradigm. These papers presented reasons and experimental evidence that showed that the major RDBMS vendors can be outperformed by 1--2 orders of magnitude by specialized engines in the data warehouse, stream processing, text, and scientific database markets. Assuming that specialized engines dominate these markets over time, the current relational DBMS code lines will be left with the business data processing (OLTP) market and hybrid markets where more than one kind of capability is required. In this paper we show that current RDBMSs can be beaten by nearly two orders of magnitude in the OLTP market as well. The experimental evidence comes from comparing a new OLTP prototype, H-Store, which we have built at M.I.T. to a popular RDBMS on the standard transactional benchmark, TPC-C. We conclude that the current RDBMS code lines, while attempting to be a "one size fits all" solution, in fact, excel at nothing. Hence, they are 25 year old legacy code lines that should be retired in favor of a collection of "from scratch" specialized engines. The DBMS vendors (and the research community) should start with a clean sheet of paper and design systems for tomorrow's requirements, not continue to push code lines and architectures designed for yesterday's needs. Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) databases include a suite of features - disk-resident B-trees and heap files, locking-based concurrency control, support for multi-threading - that were optimized for computer technology of the late 1970's. Advances in modern processors, memories, and networks mean that today's computers are vastly different from those of 30 years ago, such that many OLTP databases will now fit in main memory, and most OLTP transactions can be processed in milliseconds or less. Yet database architecture has changed little. Based on this observation, we look at some interesting variants of conventional database systems that one might build that exploit recent hardware trends, and speculate on their performance through a detailed instruction-level breakdown of the major components involved in a transaction processing database system (Shore) running a subset of TPC-C. Rather than simply profiling Shore, we progressively modified it so that after every feature removal or optimization, we had a (faster) working system that fully ran our workload. Overall, we identify overheads and optimizations that explain a total difference of about a factor of 20x in raw performance. We also show that there is no single "high pole in the tent" in modern (memory resident) database systems, but that substantial time is spent in logging, latching, locking, B-tree, and buffer management operations.