1 / 5

LEO – The Learning Optimizer

Statistics. Optimizer. Optimizer. Adjustments. Best Plan. Best Plan. Plan Execution. Plan Execution. Estimated Cardinalities. Actual Cardinalities. LEO – The Learning Optimizer. SQL Compilation. 4. Exploit. 3. Feedback. Adjustments. 2. Analyze. Estimated Cardinalities.

lara
Download Presentation

LEO – The Learning Optimizer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Statistics Optimizer Optimizer Adjustments Best Plan Best Plan Plan Execution Plan Execution Estimated Cardinalities Actual Cardinalities LEO – The Learning Optimizer SQL Compilation 4. Exploit 3. Feedback Adjustments 2. Analyze EstimatedCardinalities 1. Monitor ActualCardinalities Michael Stillger, Guy M. Lohman, Volker Markl, Mokhtar Kandil: LEO - DB2's LEarning Optimizer. VLDB 2001: 19-28

  2. knl Statistics Partial Results Optimizer Optimizer Best Plan With CHECK New Best Plan Best Plan Plan Execution with CHECK Progressive Optimization (POP) SQL Compilation 3 4 “MQT”with Actual Cardinality 5 2 Re-optimize If CHECK fails New Plan Execution Use feedback from cardinality errors toimprove current plan 6 1 Volker Markl, Vijayshankar Raman, David E. Simmen, Guy M. Lohman, Hamid Pirahesh: Robust Query Processing through Progressive Optimization. SIGMOD Conference 2004: 659-670

  3. 0 0 0 Mazda 323 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 red Consistent Cardinality Estimation Knowledge sY, Y T: s1 = s(Mazda) = 0.1 s2 = s(323) = 0.2 s3 = s(red) = 0.2 s1,2 =s(Mazda &323) = 0.05 s1,3 =s(Mazda& red) = 0.09 s2,3 =s(red&323) = 0.15 T = {{1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, } • Constraints:  0.10 = s1 = x100 + x101 + x110 + x111  0.20 = s2 = x010 + x011 + x110 + x111  0.20 = s3 = x101 + x111 + x011 + x001  0.05 = s1,2 = x110 + x111  0.09 = s1,3 = x101 + x111  0.15 = s2,3 = x011 + x111  1.00 = s = x000 + x001 + x010 + x011 + x100 + x101 + x110 + x111 Volker Markl, Nimrod Megiddo, Marcel Kutsch, Tam Minh Tran, Peter J. Haas, Utkarsh Srivastava: Consistently Estimating the Selectivity of Conjuncts of Predicates. VLDB 2005: 373-384 • Objective Function:

  4. Correlaton Detection Through Sampling The Optimizer Ihab F. Ilyas, Volker Markl, Peter J. Haas, Paul Brown, Ashraf Aboulnaga: CORDS: Automatic Discovery of Correlations and Soft Functional Dependencies. SIGMOD Conference 2004: 647-658 CGS Profile Get Statistics RUNSTATS Recommend CGS Compute Adjustments CGS CGS DATA & CATALOG INFO Dependency Graph Estimate Cardinalities & Total Cost Sample Data Analysis Dependency Discovery Output Cheapest Plan SAMPLE

  5. PICASSO Highly irregular plan boundaries Extremely fine-grained coverage (P68 ~ 0.02%) Increases to 80 plans with 300x300 grid ! Intricate Complex Patterns Slides: Naveen Reddy und Jayant Haritsa: “Analyzing Plan Diagrams of Database Query Optimizers”; VLDB 2005

More Related