两个事务处理工作负载的详细比较

{"title":"两个事务处理工作负载的详细比较","authors":"","doi":"10.1109/WWC.2002.1226492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commercial applications such as databases and Web servers constitute the most important market segment for high-performance servers. Among these applications, online transaction processing (OLTP) workloads provide a challenging set of requirements for system designs since they often exhibit inefficient executions dominated by a large memory stall component. A number of recent studies have characterized the behavior of transaction processing workloads and proposed architectural features to improve their performance. These studies have typically used a workload based on either the TPC-B or the TPC-C benchmark, with many of them opting for the simpler TPC-B benchmark. Given that the TPC-B and TPC-C workloads exhibit dramatically different characteristics on certain architectural metrics (such as cycles-per-instruction), it becomes important to find out whether the results or conclusions of these previous studies are heavily biased due to their choice of workload. This paper presents a detailed comparison of the debit-credit (modeled after TPC-B) and order-entry (modeled after TPC-C) transaction processing workloads in the context of various architectural choices. Our experiments use the Oracle commercial database engine for running the workloads, with results generated using both full system simulations and actual runs on Alpha multiprocessors. Our results confirm that certain characteristics of these workloads, such as cycles-per-instruction (CPI) and dirty miss frequency, are indeed quite different. Nonetheless, it turns out that the overall impact of most architectural choices (e.g., out-of-order execution, on-chip integration of system modules, chip multiprocessing) are surprisingly similar for the two workloads. Furthermore, the above similarity between the two workloads is sometimes due to non-intuitive effects that would be difficult to predict without conducting the experiment with both workloads. The findings in this paper make it easier to compare results from studies that use one or the other workload. Overall, we observe that for a wide range of architectural decisions that we considered, using the simpler TPC-B workload leads to virtually the same conclusions as using the more complex TPC-C workload. Finally, we show that these same conclusions hold across two generations of the Oracle database engine.","PeriodicalId":320576,"journal":{"name":"2002 IEEE International Workshop on Workload Characterization","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A detailed comparison of two transaction processing workloads\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/WWC.2002.1226492\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Commercial applications such as databases and Web servers constitute the most important market segment for high-performance servers. Among these applications, online transaction processing (OLTP) workloads provide a challenging set of requirements for system designs since they often exhibit inefficient executions dominated by a large memory stall component. A number of recent studies have characterized the behavior of transaction processing workloads and proposed architectural features to improve their performance. These studies have typically used a workload based on either the TPC-B or the TPC-C benchmark, with many of them opting for the simpler TPC-B benchmark. Given that the TPC-B and TPC-C workloads exhibit dramatically different characteristics on certain architectural metrics (such as cycles-per-instruction), it becomes important to find out whether the results or conclusions of these previous studies are heavily biased due to their choice of workload. This paper presents a detailed comparison of the debit-credit (modeled after TPC-B) and order-entry (modeled after TPC-C) transaction processing workloads in the context of various architectural choices. Our experiments use the Oracle commercial database engine for running the workloads, with results generated using both full system simulations and actual runs on Alpha multiprocessors. Our results confirm that certain characteristics of these workloads, such as cycles-per-instruction (CPI) and dirty miss frequency, are indeed quite different. Nonetheless, it turns out that the overall impact of most architectural choices (e.g., out-of-order execution, on-chip integration of system modules, chip multiprocessing) are surprisingly similar for the two workloads. Furthermore, the above similarity between the two workloads is sometimes due to non-intuitive effects that would be difficult to predict without conducting the experiment with both workloads. The findings in this paper make it easier to compare results from studies that use one or the other workload. Overall, we observe that for a wide range of architectural decisions that we considered, using the simpler TPC-B workload leads to virtually the same conclusions as using the more complex TPC-C workload. Finally, we show that these same conclusions hold across two generations of the Oracle database engine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":320576,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2002 IEEE International Workshop on Workload Characterization\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2002 IEEE International Workshop on Workload Characterization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/WWC.2002.1226492\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2002 IEEE International Workshop on Workload Characterization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/WWC.2002.1226492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

诸如数据库和Web服务器之类的商业应用程序构成了高性能服务器最重要的市场部分。在这些应用程序中,在线事务处理(OLTP)工作负载为系统设计提供了一组具有挑战性的需求,因为它们经常表现出由大型内存失速组件主导的低效执行。最近的许多研究描述了事务处理工作负载的行为,并提出了改进其性能的体系结构特性。这些研究通常使用基于TPC-B或TPC-C基准的工作负载,其中许多研究选择了更简单的TPC-B基准。鉴于TPC-B和TPC-C工作负载在某些体系结构指标(例如每指令的周期)上表现出显著不同的特征,查明这些先前研究的结果或结论是否因其工作负载的选择而存在严重偏差就变得非常重要。本文在各种架构选择的上下文中详细比较了借方-贷方(以TPC-B为模型)和订单输入(以TPC-C为模型)事务处理工作负载。我们的实验使用Oracle商业数据库引擎来运行工作负载,使用完整的系统模拟和在Alpha多处理器上实际运行生成的结果。我们的结果证实,这些工作负载的某些特征,如每指令周期(CPI)和脏漏频率,确实有很大的不同。尽管如此,事实证明,对于这两种工作负载,大多数架构选择的总体影响(例如,乱序执行、系统模块的片上集成、芯片多处理)惊人地相似。此外,两种工作负载之间的上述相似性有时是由于非直观的影响,如果不对两种工作负载进行实验,就很难预测。本文的研究结果使比较使用一种或另一种工作量的研究结果变得更加容易。总的来说,我们观察到,对于我们所考虑的广泛的体系结构决策,使用更简单的TPC-B工作负载与使用更复杂的TPC-C工作负载得到的结论实际上是相同的。最后,我们展示了同样的结论适用于两代Oracle数据库引擎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A detailed comparison of two transaction processing workloads
Commercial applications such as databases and Web servers constitute the most important market segment for high-performance servers. Among these applications, online transaction processing (OLTP) workloads provide a challenging set of requirements for system designs since they often exhibit inefficient executions dominated by a large memory stall component. A number of recent studies have characterized the behavior of transaction processing workloads and proposed architectural features to improve their performance. These studies have typically used a workload based on either the TPC-B or the TPC-C benchmark, with many of them opting for the simpler TPC-B benchmark. Given that the TPC-B and TPC-C workloads exhibit dramatically different characteristics on certain architectural metrics (such as cycles-per-instruction), it becomes important to find out whether the results or conclusions of these previous studies are heavily biased due to their choice of workload. This paper presents a detailed comparison of the debit-credit (modeled after TPC-B) and order-entry (modeled after TPC-C) transaction processing workloads in the context of various architectural choices. Our experiments use the Oracle commercial database engine for running the workloads, with results generated using both full system simulations and actual runs on Alpha multiprocessors. Our results confirm that certain characteristics of these workloads, such as cycles-per-instruction (CPI) and dirty miss frequency, are indeed quite different. Nonetheless, it turns out that the overall impact of most architectural choices (e.g., out-of-order execution, on-chip integration of system modules, chip multiprocessing) are surprisingly similar for the two workloads. Furthermore, the above similarity between the two workloads is sometimes due to non-intuitive effects that would be difficult to predict without conducting the experiment with both workloads. The findings in this paper make it easier to compare results from studies that use one or the other workload. Overall, we observe that for a wide range of architectural decisions that we considered, using the simpler TPC-B workload leads to virtually the same conclusions as using the more complex TPC-C workload. Finally, we show that these same conclusions hold across two generations of the Oracle database engine.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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