Lecture 4: DBMS Architecture

1. Lecture 4: DBMS Architecture Sept. 6 2006 ChengXiang Zhai Most slides are adapted from Kevin Chang’s lecture slides

2. DBMS Mission Statement • Simply: maintenance and computation of data • But how to do it? Data Operations Results

3. DBMS Architecture User/Web Forms/Applications/DBA query transaction Query Parser Transaction Manager Query Rewriter Logging & Recovery Query Optimizer Lock Manager Query Executor Files & Access Methods Lock Tables Buffers Buffer Manager Main Memory Storage Manager Storage

4. A Design Dilemma • To what extent should we reuse OS services? • Reuse as much as we can • Performance problem (inefficient) • Lack of control (incorrect crash recovery) • Replicating some OS functions (“mini OS”) • Have its own buffer pool • Directly manage record structures with files • …

5. OS vs. DBMS • Conjecture: Perhaps pretty close • Proof: • There exists someone who can write popular textbooks in both OS and DBMS! [Operating | Database] System Concepts • Jim Gray is from OS background!

6. OS vs. DBMS Similarities?? • What do they manage? • What do they provide?

7. OS vs. DBMS: Similarities • Purpose of an OS: • managing hardware • presenting interface abstraction to applications • DBMS is in some sense an OS? • DBMS manages data • presenting interface abstraction to applications • Both as API for application development!

8. Applications built upon DBMS • ERP: Enterprise Resource Planning • SAP, Baan, PeopleSoft, Oracle, IBM,... • CRM: Customer Relationship Management • E.phiphany, Siebel, Vantive, Oracle, IBM, ... • SCM: Supply Chain Management • Trilogy, i2, Oracle, IBM, ... • A lot more in the Info Tech era: • e-business software • scientific data • multimedia • data analysis and decision support

9. OS vs. DBMS: Related Concepts • Process Management  What DB concepts? • process synchronization • deadlock handling • Storage management  What DB concepts? • virtual memory • file system • Protection and security  What DB concepts? • authentication • access control

10. OS vs. DBMS: Differences??

11. OS vs. DBMS: Differences • DBMS: Top-down to encapsulate high-level semantics! • Data • data with particular logical structures • Queries • query language with well defined operations • Transactions • transactions with ACID properties • OS: Bottom-up to present low-level hardware

12. DBMS on top of OS: Relations vs. File system • Data object abstraction • file: array of characters • relation: set of tuples • Physical contiguity: • large DB files want clustering of blocks • extent: larger granularity allocation unit • sol1: managing raw disks by DBMS • sol2: simulate by managing free spaces in DBMS • Multiple trees (access methods) • file access: directory hierarchy (user access method) • block access: inodes • tuple access: DBMS indexes

13. DBMS on top of OS: BM vs. VM • Query-aware replacement needed for performance • not always LRU • Examples? • how about sort-merge join?? • how about nested-loop join??

14. DBMS on top of OS: BM vs. VM • System-controlled replacement needed for correctness • not always LRU • Examples?

15. Not Really OS Problems: Deferred Update Semantics • Update emp.sal = 0.8*emp.sal if emp.sal > mgr.sal empname sal manager Smith 10k Brown Jones 9k Brown 11k Jones • what are the possible semantics? • INGRES solution: deferred updates • buffer updates in intentions list for actual updates (also serve as redo log) • an example of “needing buffer knowledge in DBMS”, so perhaps not sensible to do BM totally in OS

16. As the data model and application context change, so does the DBMS architecture…

17. Post-Relational DB Projects • Motivation: • RDBMS not powerful enough for non-administrative data-intensive applications such as: CAD/CAM, GIS… • Buzz terms: object-oriented, extensible • Sample projects • Postgres: U.C. Berkeley • Starburst: IBM Almaden – “highly extensible” • after System R (relational), R* (distributed) • ultimately finding its way into IBM DB2 UDB • Exodus: U. Wisconsin • not a complete DB; an OO-style storage manager toolkit • followed by Shore at Wisconsin, Predator at Cornell

18. POSTGRES: Post INGRES Stonebraker, U.C. Berkeley • 1977-1985: INGRES • among the first relational DB implementation •  Ingres Inc. --> ..  acquired by Computer Associates • 1986-1994: POSTGRES • among the first object-relational DB implementation •  Illustra  acauqired by Informix • PostgreSQL (the SQL version)

19. RDBMS: the Relational Root • Data model: (Codd, 1970’s) • a database is a set of relations • relation of n attributes: a set of n-tuples • n-tuple: (v1, …, vn), where vi is in domain Si

20. Relational Model: Normal Forms • Basic: 1NF (First Normal Form) • implicitly required in the relation model • definition: • only simple domains of atomic elements (Codd) • simple domains represent the base (built-in) types • ? why? • “Stronger” normal forms: • 4NF, Boyce-Codd Normal Form, 3NF, 2NF, … • ? why?

21. Normalizing Relations: Example • Unnormalized relation of book “objects”: • Normalized relations: by decomposition • ?? Problems of the relational model? Books: title authors date great future {smith, jones} 4/01/01 career {jones} 7/12/00 Books: title day month year great future 4 1 01 career 7 12 00 Books: title authors great future smith great future jones career jones

22. Relational Model Problems “A relational DB is like a garage that forces you to take your car apart and store the pieces in little drawers.” (some researcher) • “Object” notion lost by decomposition • non-intuitive: object is decomposed into several relations • inefficient: a lot of online assembling by joins • Base types are too restrictive • integers and strings are very primitive • data “types” are typically application specific • Relational algebra is the only allowed operation • simple, declarative, but also restrictive • application = host language + embedded SQL • ?? How to remedy these problems?

23. Quest for a Richer Model? • Object-oriented data model • Extensible ADTs • Programming-language constructs

24. ORDBMS vs. OODBMS • Question: How important is the relation? • ORDBMS: • RDBMS + OO features # • query-based • OODBMS: • OO PL + database features (persistent objects) • programming-based • Meeting in the middle

25. Stonebraker’s Matrix • Prediction: ORDBMS will dominate • evidence: big DB players are all on this side Simple Data Complex Data QueryRDBMS ORDBMS No QueryFile System OODBMS

26. Object Orientation Concepts • Classes: • classes as types • encapsulation: interface + implementation • inheritance: building class hierarchies • Objects: • complex objects: • built from constructors, e.g., set-of, array, nested objs • object identity (OID): • system generated as unique object reference • enables (efficient) object linking and navigation

27. POSTGRES Data Model POSTGRES data model: • OO constructs • classes as relations • object (class instance) = tuple • object-id = tuple-id • method = attribute or function of attributes • inheritance (multiple parents) • ADT constructs: • types • functions

28. POSTGRES Functions • Arbitrary C functions • e.g.: overpaid(Employee) • arbitrary semantics-- not optimized • no fancy access methods-- typically sequential scan • Binary operators • “hints” to provide semantics • extensible access methods • extensible B+tree or user-defined index • PostQuel procedures • parameterized queries as functions • e.g.: sal-lookup(name): retrieve Emp.salary where Emp.name = name

29. POSTGRES Storage System We were guided by a missionary zeal to do something different… • No-overwrite system • Logging: • old values are not overwritten-- no value logging necessary • log only needs to keep transaction state (commit/abort/going) • ?? crash recovery-- how? • Vacuum-cleaner daemon to archive historical data • Advantages: • recovery is cheap • time travel is easy

30. Storage System: Problems • Problems • flushing differential data (why?) by commit time can be costly • unless “stable” main memory • more costly than sequentially writing out logs – why ?? • reads have to stitch together current picture • And, yes, there are lots details unexplored or unexplained

31. Questing for the Right Models Speaking about knowledge representation– The simple relational model is by far the only successful KR paradigm. When the relational model came along, the network guys resisted and their companies went under. … When the OO model came along, the relational guys absorb its best, and their companies prospered again! -- Jeffery Ullman

32. What You Should Know • What are some major limitations of services provided by an OS in supporting a DBMS? • In response to such limitations, what does a DBMS do? • As the data model and task environment change, the architecture will also need to change

33. Carry Away Messages • One usually doesn’t fit all! • An OS is designed to serve all kinds of applications, so it’s not optimal for supporting a DBMS • Other examples: a search engine is designed to serve all kinds of people, so it’s not optimal for a particular person (personalized search) • When a problem is recognized, there are often opportunities for breakthroughs in multiple areas • DBMS could take over OS functions • OS could provide more opportunities for customization • From “day 1”, high efficiency has been the primary challenge/concern in designing and implementing a DBMS; reliability may be the second major concern • In contrast, “accuracy of answers” is at least as important as efficiency for a Web search engine • In the future, accuracy of answers will likely become more important