(Meant to reply to the list!)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: what parallel DBMS is AsterixDB compared against?
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:18:04 -0700
From: Michael Carey <[email protected]>
To: Karl Pietrzak <[email protected]>
It's known in the literature as "System X" - other work, e.g., the early
MIT/Brown work in 2008-2009, used that same system in their work on
commercial databases vs. Hadoop and referred to it as "System X" (so we
did the same, name-wise). Most for-pay database vendors' license
agreements have a clause known informally as the "DeWitt clause" that
prohibit publishing any performance results from their systems, so the
tradition in the DBMS academic benchmarking world is to not name the
systems. This one was a commercial shared-nothing parallel DBMS that is
known to be a solid performer (it wasn't just a strawman) and in the end
the graduate student who ran the numbers visited them on-site to get
some help in properly setting up the system.
If you go to http://asterix.ics.uci.edu//publications.html you can find
a copy of the BigFUN benchmark paper (which this was a preliminary
version of) as well as some other papers that might be of interest.
Cheers,
Mike
On 8/7/19 10:52 AM, Karl Pietrzak wrote:
Hi everyone!
Looking at the home page (https://asterixdb.apache.org/index.html),
I'm wondering what parallel DBMS is AsterixDB being compared against?
Is there more information on this benchmark, too?
Thanks!
--
Karl
