Columnstore and B+ tree - Are Hybrid Physical Designs Important?

Adam Dziedzic, Jingjing Wang, Sudipto Das, Bolin Ding, Vivek R. Narasayya, M. Syamala
{"title":"Columnstore and B+ tree - Are Hybrid Physical Designs Important?","authors":"Adam Dziedzic, Jingjing Wang, Sudipto Das, Bolin Ding, Vivek R. Narasayya, M. Syamala","doi":"10.1145/3183713.3190660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commercial DBMSs, such as Microsoft SQL Server, cater to diverse workloads including transaction processing, decision support, and operational analytics. They also support variety in physical design structures such as B+ tree and columnstore. The benefits of B+ tree for OLTP workloads and columnstore for decision support workloads are well-understood. However, the importance of hybrid physical designs, consisting of both columnstore and B+ tree indexes on the same database, is not well-studied --- a focus of this paper. We first quantify the trade-offs using carefully-crafted micro-benchmarks. This micro-benchmarking indicates that hybrid physical designs can result in orders of magnitude better performance depending on the workload. For complex real-world applications, choosing an appropriate combination of columnstore and B+ tree indexes for a database workload is challenging. We extend the Database Engine Tuning Advisor for Microsoft SQL Server to recommend a suitable combination of B+ tree and columnstore indexes for a given workload. Through extensive experiments using industry-standard benchmarks and several real-world customer workloads, we quantify how a physical design tool capable of recommending hybrid physical designs can result in orders of magnitude better execution costs compared to approaches that rely either on columnstore-only or B+ tree-only designs.","PeriodicalId":20430,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3183713.3190660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Commercial DBMSs, such as Microsoft SQL Server, cater to diverse workloads including transaction processing, decision support, and operational analytics. They also support variety in physical design structures such as B+ tree and columnstore. The benefits of B+ tree for OLTP workloads and columnstore for decision support workloads are well-understood. However, the importance of hybrid physical designs, consisting of both columnstore and B+ tree indexes on the same database, is not well-studied --- a focus of this paper. We first quantify the trade-offs using carefully-crafted micro-benchmarks. This micro-benchmarking indicates that hybrid physical designs can result in orders of magnitude better performance depending on the workload. For complex real-world applications, choosing an appropriate combination of columnstore and B+ tree indexes for a database workload is challenging. We extend the Database Engine Tuning Advisor for Microsoft SQL Server to recommend a suitable combination of B+ tree and columnstore indexes for a given workload. Through extensive experiments using industry-standard benchmarks and several real-world customer workloads, we quantify how a physical design tool capable of recommending hybrid physical designs can result in orders of magnitude better execution costs compared to approaches that rely either on columnstore-only or B+ tree-only designs.
列存储和B+树-混合物理设计重要吗?
商业dbms(如Microsoft SQL Server)可以满足各种工作负载,包括事务处理、决策支持和操作分析。它们还支持多种物理设计结构,如B+树和columnstore。B+树对于OLTP工作负载和columnstore对于决策支持工作负载的好处是众所周知的。然而,混合物理设计(由同一数据库上的columnstore和B+树索引组成)的重要性并没有得到很好的研究——这是本文的一个重点。我们首先使用精心设计的微基准来量化权衡。这种微基准测试表明,根据工作负载的不同,混合物理设计可以带来数量级的性能提升。对于复杂的实际应用程序,为数据库工作负载选择合适的columnstore和B+树索引组合是一项挑战。我们扩展了Microsoft SQL Server的数据库引擎优化顾问,为给定的工作负载推荐B+树和columnstore索引的合适组合。通过使用行业标准基准测试和几个真实客户工作负载的大量实验,我们量化了能够推荐混合物理设计的物理设计工具如何比依赖仅列存储或仅B+树设计的方法带来更好的执行成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信