Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Finding a Second Wind: Speeding Up Graph Traversal Queries in RDBMSs Using Column-Oriented Processing

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.08702 v1 pith:VENQNNDG submitted 2023-08-16 cs.DB cs.PF

classification cs.DBcs.PF
keywords queryapproachprocessingqueriesrecursivecasescolumn-storecore
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recursive queries and recursive derived tables constitute an important part of the SQL standard. Their efficient processing is important for many real-life applications that rely on graph or hierarchy traversal. Position-enabled column-stores offer a novel opportunity to improve run times for this type of queries. Such systems allow the engine to explicitly use data positions (row ids) inside its core and thus, enable novel efficient implementations of query plan operators. In this paper, we present an approach that significantly speeds up recursive query processing inside RDBMSes. Its core idea is to employ a particular aspect of column-store technology (late materialization) which enables the query engine to manipulate data positions during query execution. Based on it, we propose two sets of Volcano-style operators intended to process different query cases. In order validate our ideas, we have implemented the proposed approach in PosDB, an RDBMS column-store with SQL support. We experimentally demonstrate the viability of our approach by providing a comparison with PostgreSQL. Experiments show that for breadth-first search: 1) our position-based approach yields up to 6x better results than PostgreSQL, 2) our tuple-based one results in only 3x improvement when using a special rewriting technique, but it can work in a larger number of cases, and 3) both approaches can't be emulated in row-stores efficiently.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools