评估数据建模对使用关系和列式DBMS的OLAP应用程序的影响

Clodis Boscarioli, L. Torres, G. Krüger, M. Oyamada
{"title":"评估数据建模对使用关系和列式DBMS的OLAP应用程序的影响","authors":"Clodis Boscarioli, L. Torres, G. Krüger, M. Oyamada","doi":"10.1109/CLEI.2018.00062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data Warehouses has consolidate as the decision support technology used by Organizations that uses OLAP applications to access the stored data. As these data volume increases more efficient approaches to process them are needed. To do so, both traditional relational databases management systems and columnar ones can be used, each one with their advantages over the Data Warehouse modeling. More normalized models are traditional among tuple oriented relational databases, whereas denormalized ones bring a better performance in columnar DBMS. A comparative study between MonetDB and PostgreSQL DBMS using TPC-H as a benchmark is presented here, to investigate which one is indicated to manage a Data Warehouse in information access. The results confirmed that, isolated, in denormalized environments MonetDB excels, while PostgreSQL is better for normalized modeling. In general, MonetDB stands out compared to PostgreSQL, with performance gains of almost 500% on normalized model, and over 1000% on the denormalized one.","PeriodicalId":379986,"journal":{"name":"2018 XLIV Latin American Computer Conference (CLEI)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Impact of Data Modeling on OLAP Applications using Relacional and Columnar DBMS\",\"authors\":\"Clodis Boscarioli, L. Torres, G. Krüger, M. Oyamada\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/CLEI.2018.00062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Data Warehouses has consolidate as the decision support technology used by Organizations that uses OLAP applications to access the stored data. As these data volume increases more efficient approaches to process them are needed. To do so, both traditional relational databases management systems and columnar ones can be used, each one with their advantages over the Data Warehouse modeling. More normalized models are traditional among tuple oriented relational databases, whereas denormalized ones bring a better performance in columnar DBMS. A comparative study between MonetDB and PostgreSQL DBMS using TPC-H as a benchmark is presented here, to investigate which one is indicated to manage a Data Warehouse in information access. The results confirmed that, isolated, in denormalized environments MonetDB excels, while PostgreSQL is better for normalized modeling. In general, MonetDB stands out compared to PostgreSQL, with performance gains of almost 500% on normalized model, and over 1000% on the denormalized one.\",\"PeriodicalId\":379986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 XLIV Latin American Computer Conference (CLEI)\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 XLIV Latin American Computer Conference (CLEI)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/CLEI.2018.00062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 XLIV Latin American Computer Conference (CLEI)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CLEI.2018.00062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

数据仓库已经成为使用OLAP应用程序访问存储数据的组织使用的决策支持技术。随着这些数据量的增加,需要更有效的方法来处理它们。为此,既可以使用传统的关系数据库管理系统,也可以使用列式数据库管理系统,每种系统都有其优于数据仓库建模的优点。在面向元组的关系数据库中,传统的模型是规范化的,而在列式数据库中,非规范化模型带来了更好的性能。本文以TPC-H为基准,对MonetDB和PostgreSQL DBMS进行了比较研究,以研究在信息访问中哪一种数据库更适合管理数据仓库。结果证实,在非规范化环境中,独立的MonetDB表现出色,而PostgreSQL更适合规范化建模。总的来说,与PostgreSQL相比,MonetDB表现突出,在规范化模型上性能提升近500%,在非规范化模型上性能提升超过1000%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating the Impact of Data Modeling on OLAP Applications using Relacional and Columnar DBMS
Data Warehouses has consolidate as the decision support technology used by Organizations that uses OLAP applications to access the stored data. As these data volume increases more efficient approaches to process them are needed. To do so, both traditional relational databases management systems and columnar ones can be used, each one with their advantages over the Data Warehouse modeling. More normalized models are traditional among tuple oriented relational databases, whereas denormalized ones bring a better performance in columnar DBMS. A comparative study between MonetDB and PostgreSQL DBMS using TPC-H as a benchmark is presented here, to investigate which one is indicated to manage a Data Warehouse in information access. The results confirmed that, isolated, in denormalized environments MonetDB excels, while PostgreSQL is better for normalized modeling. In general, MonetDB stands out compared to PostgreSQL, with performance gains of almost 500% on normalized model, and over 1000% on the denormalized one.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Data Quality Measurement Framework A Chatterbot Sensitive to Student's Context to Help on Software Engineering Education Quality Assessment of Awareness Support in Agile Collaborative Tools Digital Recording of Temporal Sequences of Images Applied to the Analysis of the Phenological Evolution of Maize Crops Ludic Practices to Support the Development of Software Engineering Educational Games: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1