架构时代的终结:是时候彻底重写了

M. Stonebraker, S. Madden, D. Abadi, S. Harizopoulos, N. Hachem, Pat Helland
{"title":"架构时代的终结:是时候彻底重写了","authors":"M. Stonebraker, S. Madden, D. Abadi, S. Harizopoulos, N. Hachem, Pat Helland","doi":"10.1145/3226595.3226637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. \n \nAssuming 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. \n \nWe 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.","PeriodicalId":312561,"journal":{"name":"Making Databases Work","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The end of an architectural era: it's time for a complete rewrite\",\"authors\":\"M. Stonebraker, S. Madden, D. Abadi, S. Harizopoulos, N. Hachem, Pat Helland\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3226595.3226637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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. \\n \\nAssuming 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. \\n \\nWe 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":312561,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Making Databases Work\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Making Databases Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3226595.3226637\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Making Databases Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3226595.3226637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

在以前的论文[SC05, SBC+07]中,我们中的一些人预测“一刀切”作为商业关系DBMS范例的终结。这些论文提出的原因和实验证据表明,在数据仓库、流处理、文本和科学数据库市场上,主要的RDBMS供应商可以被专门的引擎超越1- 2个数量级。假设随着时间的推移,专门的引擎主导了这些市场,那么当前的关系DBMS代码行将留给业务数据处理(OLTP)市场和需要多种功能的混合市场。在本文中,我们展示了当前的rdbms在OLTP市场上也可以被击败近两个数量级。实验证据来自于我们在麻省理工学院建立的一个新的OLTP原型H-Store和一个流行的RDBMS在标准事务基准TPC-C上的比较。我们得出的结论是,当前的RDBMS代码行虽然试图成为“一刀切”的解决方案,但实际上什么都不擅长。因此,它们是有25年历史的遗留代码行,应该被淘汰,取而代之的是一组“从零开始”的专用引擎。DBMS供应商(和研究社区)应该从一张白纸开始,为未来的需求设计系统,而不是继续推动为昨天的需求设计的代码行和体系结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The end of an architectural era: it's time for a complete rewrite
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.
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