Parallel evaluation of conjunctive queries

ABSTRACT

The availability of large data centers with tens of thousands of servers has led to the popular adoption of massive parallelism for data analysis on large datasets. Several query languages exist for running queries on massively parallel architectures, some based on the MapReduce infrastructure, others using proprietary implementations. Motivated by this trend, this paper analyzes the parallel complexity of conjunctive queries. We propose a very simple model of parallel computation that captures these architectures, in which the complexity parameter is the number of parallel steps requiring synchronization of all servers. We study the complexity of conjunctive queries and give a complete characterization of the queries which can be computed in one parallel step. These form a strict subset of hierarchical queries, and include flat queries like R(x,y), S(x,z), T(x,v), U(x,w), tall queries like R(x), S(x,y), T(x,y,z), U(x,y,z,w), and combinations thereof, which we call tall-flat queries. We describe an algorithm for computing in parallel any tall-flat query, and prove that any query that is not tall-flat cannot be computed in one step in this model. Finally, we present extensions of our results to queries that are not tall-flat.

References

1. F. N. Afrati and J. D. Ullman. Optimizing joins in a map-reduce environment. In EDBT, pages 99--110, 2010.
2. P. Alvaro, W. Marczak, N. Conway, J. M. Hellerstein, D. Maier, and R. C. Sears. Dedalus: Datalog in time and space. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2009-173, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Dec 2009.
3. L. Carter and M. N. Wegman. Universal classes of hash functions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 18(2):143--154, 1979.
4. R. Chaiken, B. Jenkins, P.-A. Larson, B. Ramsey, D. Shakib, S. Weaver, and J. Zhou. Scope: easy and efficient parallel processing of massive data sets. Proc. VLDB Endow., 1:1265--1276, August 2008.
5. S. Cohen. Containment of aggregate queries. SIGMOD Record, 34(1):77--85, 2005.
6. D. E. Culler, R. M. Karp, D. A. Patterson, A. Sahay, K. E. Schauser, E. E. Santos, R. Subramonian, and T. von Eicken. Logp: Towards a realistic model of parallel computation. In PPOPP, pages 1--12, 1993.
7. N. N. Dalvi and D. Suciu. Efficient query evaluation on probabilistic databases. VLDB J., 16(4):523--544, 2007.
8. J. Dean and S. Ghemawat. Mapreduce: Simplified data processing on large clusters. In OSDI, pages 137--150, 2004.
9. D. J. DeWitt and J. Gray. Parallel database systems: The future of high performance database systems. Commun. ACM, 35(6):85--98, 1992.
10. A. Gates, O. Natkovich, S. Chopra, P. Kamath, S. Narayanam, C. Olston, B. Reed, S. Srinivasan, and U. Srivastava. Building a highlevel dataflow system on top of mapreduce: The pig experience. PVLDB, 2(2):1414--1425, 2009.
11. M. Grohe, Y. Gurevich, D. Leinders, N. Schweikardt, J. Tyszkiewicz, and J. V. den Bussche. Database query processing using finite cursor machines. Theory Comput. Syst., 44(4):533--560, 2009.
12. J. M. Hellerstein. The declarative imperative: experiences and conjectures in distributed logic. SIGMOD Rec., 39:5--19, September 2010.
13. N. Immerman. Expressibility and parallel complexity. SIAM J. Comput., 18(3):625--638, 1989.
14. H. J. Karloff, S. Suri, and S. Vassilvitskii. A model of computation for mapreduce. In SODA, pages 938--948, 2010.
15. P. Koutris and D. Suciu. Parallel evaluation of conjunctive queries. Research Report UW-CSE-11-03-01, University of Washington, 2011.
16. L. Libkin. Elements of Finite Model Theory. Springer, 2004.
17. S. Melnik, A. Gubarev, J. J. Long, G. Romer, S. Shivakumar, M. Tolton, and T. Vassilakis. Dremel: Interactive analysis of web-scale datasets. PVLDB, 3(1):330--339, 2010.
18. A. Pagh and R. Pagh. Uniform hashing in constant time and optimal space. SIAM J. Comput., 38(1):85--96, 2008.
19. M. Raab and A. Steger. "balls into bins" - a simple and tight analysis. In RANDOM, pages 159--170, 1998.
20. P. Sanders. On the competitive analysis of randomized static load balancing. In Proceedings of the first Workshop on Randomized Parallel Algorithms, RANDOM, 1996.
21. L. J. Stockmeyer and U. Vishkin. Simulation of parallel random access machines by circuits. SIAM J. Comput., 13(2):409--422, 1984.
22. A. Thusoo, J. S. Sarma, N. Jain, Z. Shao, P. Chakka, S. Anthony, H. Liu, P. Wyckoff, and R. Murthy. Hive - a warehousing solution over a map-reduce framework. PVLDB, 2(2):1626--1629, 2009.
23. L. G. Valiant. A bridging model for parallel computation. Commun. ACM, 33(8):103--111, 1990.
24. Y. Xu, P. Kostamaa, X. Zhou, and L. Chen. Handling data skew in parallel joins in shared-nothing systems. In SIGMOD '08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 1043--1052, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
25. Y. Yu, M. Isard, D. Fetterly, M. Budiu, Ú. Erlingsson, P. K. Gunda, and J. Currey. Dryadlinq: A system for general-purpose distributed data-parallel computing using a high-level language. In OSDI, pages 1--14, 2008.

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • Data management systems

    • Database management system engines

      • Parallel and distributed DBMSs