Effective Scheduling of Detached Rules in Active Databases

While triggers have become a classical ingredient of relational database systems, research in active databases is aiming at extending the functionality and expressive power of active rules beyond the scope of relational triggers. One of the most important current trend concerns the support of detached active rules, i.e., of rules which are executed as separate transactions, running outside of the scope of the transaction which generates the triggering event. Detached rules have important applications in workflow management and global integrity maintenance across transactions. One of the main issues in designing the rule engine for detached rules is determining their optimal scheduling. In this paper, we study the performance of a detached rule scheduler whose objective is to minimize the interference of detached rule execution with regard to the normal transactional load. This objective is achieved by executing detached rules at given periods of time and by assigning them a fixed amount of dedicated threads; we study the performance of the scheduler relative to the two most critical design parameters, the frequency of execution of the scheduler, and the number of dedicated execution threads.

[1]  Anca Vaduva,et al.  SAMOS an Active Object-Oriented Database System: Manual , 1996 .

[2]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  Priority assignment in real-time active databases , 1996, The VLDB Journal.

[3]  Edward D. Lazowska,et al.  Quantitative system performance - computer system analysis using queueing network models , 1983, Int. CMG Conference.

[4]  Andreas Geppert,et al.  Event-based distributed work-flow execution with eve , 2009 .

[5]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  The TriGS active object-oriented database system— an overview , 1998, SGMD.

[6]  Jennifer Widom,et al.  The STRIP rule system for efficiently maintaining derived data , 1997, SIGMOD '97.

[7]  Sharma Chakravarthy,et al.  The HiPAC Project , 1996, Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules For Advanced Database Processing.

[8]  Elena Baralis,et al.  Performance evaluation of rule execution semantics in active databases , 1997, Proceedings 13th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[9]  Shang Zhi,et al.  A proof of the queueing formula: L=λW , 2001 .

[10]  Elena Baralis,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Rule Semantics in Active Databases , 1997, ICDE 1997.

[11]  Leonard Kleinrock,et al.  Theory, Volume 1, Queueing Systems , 1975 .

[12]  Fabio Casati,et al.  Specification and implementation of exceptions in workflow management systems , 1999, TODS.

[13]  Andreas Reuter,et al.  Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques , 1992 .

[14]  Virgílio A. F. Almeida,et al.  Capacity Planning and Performance Modeling: From Mainframes to Client-Server Systems , 1994 .

[15]  Fabio Casati,et al.  Deriving Active Rules for Workflow Enactment , 1996, DEXA.

[16]  Jennifer Widom,et al.  Active Database Systems , 1995, Modern Database Systems.

[17]  Miron Livny,et al.  On Transaction Boundaries in Active Databases: A Performance Perspective , 1991, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[18]  J. Little A Proof for the Queuing Formula: L = λW , 1961 .

[19]  Eric Simon,et al.  Active Database Systems: Expectations, Commercial Experience, and Beyond , 1999, Active Rules in Database Systems.

[20]  Norman W. Paton,et al.  Active Rules in Database Systems , 1998, Monographs in Computer Science.

[21]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Database Support for Efficiently Maintaining Derived Data , 1996, EDBT.

[22]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  A framework for workflow management systems based on objects, rules and roles , 2000, CSUR.

[23]  Stefano Paraboschi,et al.  Chimera: A Language for Designing Rule Applications , 1999, Active Rules in Database Systems.

[24]  Sharma Chakravarthy Sentinel: an object-oriented DBMS with event-based rules , 1997, SIGMOD '97.