I/O Parallelism Interquery Parallelism Intraquery Parallelism Intraoperation Parallelism Interoperation Parallelism Design of Parallel Systems

Chapter 20: Parallel Databases
 Introduction
 I/O Parallelism
 Interquery Parallelism
 Intraquery Parallelism
 Intraoperation Parallelism
 Interoperation Parallelism
 Design of Parallel Systems
Database System Concepts 20.1 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Introduction
 Parallel machines are becoming quite common and affordable

 Prices of microprocessors, memory and disks have dropped sharply
 Databases are growing increasingly large
 large volumes of transaction data are collected and stored for later
analysis.
 multimedia objects like images are increasingly stored in databases
 Large-scale parallel database systems increasingly used for:
 storing large volumes of data
 processing time-consuming decision-support queries
 providing high throughput for transaction processing

Parallelism in Databases
 Data can be partitioned across multiple disks for parallel I/O.

 Individual relational operations (e.g., sort, join, aggregation) can
be executed in parallel
 data can be partitioned and each processor can work independently
on its own partition.
 Queries are expressed in high level language (SQL, translated to
relational algebra)
 makes parallelization easier.
 Different queries can be run in parallel with each other.
Concurrency control takes care of conflicts.
 Thus, databases naturally lend themselves to parallelism.

I/O Parallelism
 Reduce the time required to retrieve relations from disk by partitioning

 the relations on multiple disks.
 Horizontal partitioning – tuples of a relation are divided among many
disks such that each tuple resides on one disk.
 Partitioning techniques (number of disks = n):
Round-robin:
Send the ith tuple inserted in the relation to disk i mod n.
Hash partitioning:
 Choose one or more attributes as the partitioning attributes.
 Choose hash function h with range 0…n - 1
 Let i denote result of hash function h applied tothe partitioning attribute
value of a tuple. Send tuple to disk i.

I/O Parallelism (Cont.)
 Partitioning techniques (cont.):

 Range partitioning:
 Choose an attribute as the partitioning attribute.
 A partitioning vector [vo, v1, ..., vn-2] is chosen.
 Let v be the partitioning attribute value of a tuple. Tuples such that vi
 vi+1 go to disk I + 1. Tuples with v < v0 go to disk 0 and tuples with
v  vn-2 go to disk n-1.
E.g., with a partitioning vector [5,11], a tuple with partitioning attribute
value of 2 will go to disk 0, a tuple with value 8 will go to disk 1,
while a tuple with value 20 will go to disk2.

Comparison of Partitioning Techniques
 Evaluate how well partitioning techniques support the following

types of data access:
1.Scanning the entire relation.
2.Locating a tuple associatively – point queries.
 E.g., r.A = 25.
3.Locating all tuples such that the value of a given attribute lies
within a specified range – range queries.
 E.g., 10  r.A < 25.

Comparison of Partitioning Techniques (Cont.)
Round robin:
 Advantages
 Best suited for sequential scan of entire relation on each query.
 All disks have almost an equal number of tuples; retrieval work is
thus well balanced between disks.
 Range queries are difficult to process
 No clustering -- tuples are scattered across all disks

Comparison of Partitioning Techniques(Cont.)
Hash partitioning:
 Good for sequential access
 Assuming hash function is good, and partitioning attributes form a
key, tuples will be equally distributed between disks
 Retrieval work is then well balanced between disks.
 Good for point queries on partitioning attribute
 Can lookup single disk, leaving others available for answering other
queries.
 Index on partitioning attribute can be local to disk, making lookup
and update more efficient
 No clustering, so difficult to answer range queries

Comparison of Partitioning Techniques (Cont.)
Range partitioning:
 Provides data clustering by partitioning attribute value.
 Good for sequential access
 Good for point queries on partitioning attribute: only one disk
needs to be accessed.
 For range queries on partitioning attribute, one to a few disks
may need to be accessed
 Remaining disks are available for other queries.
 Good if result tuples are from one to a few blocks.
 If many blocks are to be fetched, they are still fetched from one
to a few disks, and potential parallelism in disk access is wasted
 Example of execution skew.

Partitioning a Relation across Disks
 If a relation contains only a few tuples which will fit into a single
disk block, then assign the relation to a single disk.
 Large relations are preferably partitioned across all the available
disks.
 If a relation consists of m disk blocks and there are n disks
available in the system, then the relation should be allocated
min(m,n) disks.

Handling of Skew
 The distribution of tuples to disks may be skewed — that is,

some disks have many tuples, while others may have fewer
tuples.
 Types of skew:
 Attribute-value skew.
 Some values appear in the partitioning attributes of many tuples;
all the tuples with the same value for the partitioning attribute
end up in the same partition.
 Can occur with range-partitioning and hash-partitioning.
 Partition skew.
 With range-partitioning, badly chosen partition vector may assign
too many tuples to some partitions and too few to others.
 Less likely with hash-partitioning if a good hash-function is
chosen.

Handling Skew in Range-Partitioning
 To create a balanced partitioning vector (assuming partitioning

attribute forms a key of the relation):
 Sort the relation on the partitioning attribute.
 Construct the partition vector by scanning the relation in sorted order
as follows.
 After every 1/nth of the relation has been read, the value of the
partitioning attribute of the next tuple is added to the partition
vector.
 n denotes the number of partitions to be constructed.
 Duplicate entries or imbalances can result if duplicates are present in
partitioning attributes.
 Alternative technique based on histograms used in practice

Handling Skew using Histograms
 Balanced partitioning vector can be constructed from histogram in a
relatively straightforward fashion
 Assume uniform distribution within each range of the histogram
 Histogram can be constructed by scanning relation, or sampling
(blocks containing) tuples of the relation

Handling Skew Using Virtual Processor
Partitioning
 Skew in range partitioning can be handled elegantly using

virtual processor partitioning:
 create a large number of partitions (say 10 to 20 times the number
of processors)
 Assign virtual processors to partitions either in round-robin fashion
or based on estimated cost of processing each virtual partition
 Basic idea:
 If any normal partition would have been skewed, it is very likely the
skew is spread over a number of virtual partitions
 Skewed virtual partitions get spread across a number of processors,
so work gets distributed evenly!

Interquery Parallelism
 Queries/transactions execute in parallel with one another.
 Increases transaction throughput; used primarily to scale up a
transaction processing system to support a larger number of
transactions per second.
 Easiest form of parallelism to support, particularly in a shared-
memory parallel database, because even sequential database
systems support concurrent processing.
 More complicated to implement on shared-disk or shared-nothing
architectures
 Locking and logging must be coordinated by passing messages
between processors.
 Data in a local buffer may have been updated at another processor.
 Cache-coherency has to be maintained — reads and writes of data
in buffer must find latest version of data.

Cache Coherency Protocol
 Example of a cache coherency protocol for shared disk systems:

 Before reading/writing to a page, the page must be locked in
shared/exclusive mode.
 On locking a page, the page must be read from disk
 Before unlocking a page, the page must be written to disk if it was
modified.
 More complex protocols with fewer disk reads/writes exist.
 Cache coherency protocols for shared-nothing systems are
similar. Each database page is assigned a home processor.
Requests to fetch the page or write it to disk are sent to the
home processor.

Intraquery Parallelism
 Execution of a single query in parallel on multiple

processors/disks; important for speeding up long-running
queries.
 Two complementary forms of intraquery parallelism :
 Intraoperation Parallelism – parallelize the execution of each
individual operation in the query (join,sort,select).
 Interoperation Parallelism – execute the different operations in a
query expression in parallel.
the first form scales better with increasing parallelism because
the number of tuples processed by each operation is typically
more than the number of operations in a query

Parallel Processing of Relational Operations
 Our discussion of parallel algorithms assumes:

 read-only queries
 shared-nothing architecture
 n processors, P0, ..., Pn-1, and n disks D0, ..., Dn-1, where disk Di is
associated with processor Pi.
 If a processor has multiple disks they can simply simulate a
single disk Di.
 Shared-nothing architectures can be efficiently simulated on
shared-memory and shared-disk systems.
 Algorithms for shared-nothing systems can thus be run on shared-
memory and shared-disk systems.
 However, some optimizations may be possible.

Parallel Sort
Range-Partitioning Sort
 Choose processors P0, ..., Pm, where m  n -1 to do sorting.
 Create range-partition vector with m entries, on the sorting attributes
 Redistribute the relation using range partitioning
 all tuples that lie in the ith range are sent to processor Pi
 Pi stores the tuples it received temporarily on disk Di.
 This step requires I/O and communication overhead.
 Each processor Pi sorts its partition of the relation locally.
 Each processors executes same operation (sort) in parallel with other
processors, without any interaction with the others (data parallelism).
 Final merge operation is trivial: range-partitioning ensures that, for 1 j
m, the key values in processor Pi are all less than the key values in Pj.

Parallel Sort (Cont.)
Parallel External Sort-Merge

 Assume the relation has already been partitioned among disks
D0, ..., Dn-1 (in whatever manner).
 Each processor Pi locally sorts the data on disk Di.
 The sorted runs on each processor are then merged to get the
final sorted output.
 Parallelize the merging of sorted runs as follows:
 The sorted partitions at each processor Pi are range-partitioned
across the processors P0, ..., Pm-1.
 Each processor Pi performs a merge on the streams as they are
received, to get a single sorted run.
 The sorted runs on processors P0,..., Pm-1 are concatenated to get
the final result.

Parallel Join
 The join operation requires pairs of tuples to be tested to see if

they satisfy the join condition, and if they do, the pair is added to
the join output.
 Parallel join algorithms attempt to split the pairs to be tested over
several processors. Each processor then computes part of the
join locally.
 In a final step, the results from each processor can be collected
together to produce the final result.

Partitioned Join
 For equi-joins and natural joins, it is possible to partition the two input
relations across the processors, and compute the join locally at each
processor.
 Let r and s be the input relations, and we want to compute r r.A=s.B s.
 r and s each are partitioned into n partitions, denoted r0, r1, ..., rn-1 and
s0, s1, ..., sn-1.
 Can use either range partitioning or hash partitioning.
 r and s must be partitioned on their join attributes r.A and s.B), using
the same range-partitioning vector or hash function.
 Partitions ri and si are sent to processor Pi,
 Each processor Pi locally computes ri ri.A=si.B si. Any of the
standard join methods can be used.

Partitioned Join (Cont.)

Fragment-and-Replicate Join
 Partitioning not possible for some join conditions

 e.g., non-equijoin conditions, such as r.A > s.B.
 For joins were partitioning is not applicable, parallelization can
be accomplished by fragment and replicate technique
 Depicted on next slide
 Special case – asymmetric fragment-and-replicate:
 One of the relations, say r, is partitioned; any partitioning technique
can be used.
 The other relation, s, is replicated across all the processors.
 Processor Pi then locally computes the join of ri with all of s using
any join technique.

Depiction of Fragment-and-Replicate Joins
a. Asymmetric
Fragment and
Replicate b. Fragment and Replicate
Fragment-and-Replicate Join (Cont.)
 General case: reduces the sizes of the relations at each

processor.
 r is partitioned into n partitions,r0, r1, ..., r n-1;s is partitioned into m
partitions, s0, s1, ..., sm-1.
 Any partitioning technique may be used.
 There must be at least m * n processors.
 Label the processors as
 P0,0, P0,1, ..., P0,m-1, P1,0, ..., Pn-1m-1.
 Pi,j computes the join of ri with sj. In order to do so, ri is replicated to
Pi,0, Pi,1, ..., Pi,m-1, while si is replicated to P0,i, P1,i, ..., Pn-1,i
 Any join technique can be used at each processor Pi,j.

Fragment-and-Replicate Join (Cont.)
 Both versions of fragment-and-replicate work with any join

condition, since every tuple in r can be tested with every tuple in s.
 Usually has a higher cost than partitioning, since one of the
relations (for asymmetric fragment-and-replicate) or both relations
(for general fragment-and-replicate) have to be replicated.
 Sometimes asymmetric fragment-and-replicate is preferable even
though partitioning could be used.
 E.g., say s is small and r is large, and already partitioned. It may be
cheaper to replicate s across all processors, rather than repartition r
and s on the join attributes.

Partitioned Parallel Hash-Join
Parallelizing partitioned hash join:

 Assume s is smaller than r and therefore s is chosen as the build
relation.
 A hash function h1 takes the join attribute value of each tuple in s
and maps this tuple to one of the n processors.
 Each processor Pi reads the tuples of s that are on its disk Di,
and sends each tuple to the appropriate processor based on
hash function h1. Let si denote the tuples of relation s that are
sent to processor Pi.
 As tuples of relation s are received at the destination processors,
they are partitioned further using another hash function, h2,
which is used to compute the hash-join locally. (Cont.)

Partitioned Parallel Hash-Join (Cont.)
 Once the tuples of s have been distributed, the larger relation r is

redistributed across the m processors using the hash function h1
 Let ri denote the tuples of relation r that are sent to processor Pi.
 As the r tuples are received at the destination processors, they
are repartitioned using the function h2
 (just as the probe relation is partitioned in the sequential hash-join
algorithm).
 Each processor Pi executes the build and probe phases of the
hash-join algorithm on the local partitions ri and s of r and s to
produce a partition of the final result of the hash-join.
 Note: Hash-join optimizations can be applied to the parallel case
 e.g., the hybrid hash-join algorithm can be used to cache some of
the incoming tuples in memory and avoid the cost of writing them
and reading them back in.

Parallel Nested-Loop Join
 Assume that
 relation s is much smaller than relation r and that r is stored by
partitioning.
 there is an index on a join attribute of relation r at each of the
partitions of relation r.
 Use asymmetric fragment-and-replicate, with relation s being
replicated, and using the existing partitioning of relation r.
 Each processor Pj where a partition of relation s is stored reads
the tuples of relation s stored in Dj, and replicates the tuples to
every other processor Pi.
 At the end of this phase, relation s is replicated at all sites that store
tuples of relation r.
 Each processor Pi performs an indexed nested-loop join of
relation s with the ith partition of relation r.

Other Relational Operations
Selection (r)
 If  is of the form ai = v, where ai is an attribute and v a value.
 If r is partitioned on ai the selection is performed at a single
processor.
 If  is of the form l <= ai <= u (i.e.,  is a range selection) and the
relation has been range-partitioned on ai
 Selection is performed at each processor whose partition overlaps
with the specified range of values.
 In all other cases: the selection is performed in parallel at all the
processors.

Other Relational Operations (Cont.)
 Duplicate elimination
 Perform by using either of the parallel sort techniques
 eliminate duplicates as soon as they are found during sorting.
 Can also partition the tuples (using either range- or hash-
partitioning) and perform duplicate elimination locally at each
processor.
 Projection
 Projection without duplicate elimination can be performed as tuples
are read in from disk in parallel.
 If duplicate elimination is required, any of the above duplicate
elimination techniques can be used.

Grouping/Aggregation
 Partition the relation on the grouping attributes and then compute

the aggregate values locally at each processor.
 Can reduce cost of transferring tuples during partitioning by
partly computing aggregate values before partitioning.
 Consider the sum aggregation operation:
 Perform aggregation operation at each processor Pi on those tuples
stored on disk Di
 results in tuples with partial sums at each processor.
 Result of the local aggregation is partitioned on the grouping
attributes, and the aggregation performed again at each processor
Pi to get the final result.
 Fewer tuples need to be sent to other processors during
partitioning.

Cost of Parallel Evaluation of Operations
 If there is no skew in the partitioning, and there is no overhead

due to the parallel evaluation, expected speed-up will be 1/n
 If skew and overheads are also to be taken into account, the time
taken by a parallel operation can be estimated as
Tpart + Tasm + max (T0, T1, …, Tn-1)
 Tpart is the time for partitioning the relations
 Tasm is the time for assembling the results
 Ti is the time taken for the operation at processor Pi
 this needs to be estimated taking into account the skew, and the
time wasted in contentions.

Interoperator Parallelism
 Pipelined parallelism
 Consider a join of four relations
 r1 r2 r3 r4
 Set up a pipeline that computes the three joins in parallel
 Let P1 be assigned the computation of
temp1 = r1 r2
 And P2 be assigned the computation of temp2 = temp1 r3
 And P3 be assigned the computation of temp2 r4
 Each of these operations can execute in parallel, sending result
tuples it computes to the next operation even as it is computing
further results
 Provided a pipelineable join evaluation algorithm (e.g. indexed
nested loops join) is used

Factors Limiting Utility of Pipeline
Parallelism
 Pipeline parallelism is useful since it avoids writing intermediate

results to disk
 Useful with small number of processors, but does not scale up
well with more processors. One reason is that pipeline chains do
not attain sufficient length.
 Cannot pipeline operators which do not produce output until all
inputs have been accessed (e.g. aggregate and sort)
 Little speedup is obtained for the frequent cases of skew in which
one operator's execution cost is much higher than the others.

Independent Parallelism
 Independent parallelism
 Consider a join of four relations
r1 r2 r3 r4
 Let P1 be assigned the computation of
temp1 = r1 r2
 And P2 be assigned the computation of temp2 = r3 r4
 And P3 be assigned the computation of temp1 temp2
 P1 and P2 can work independently in parallel
 P3 has to wait for input from P1 and P2
– Can pipeline output of P1 and P2 to P3, combining
independent parallelism and pipelined parallelism
 Does not provide a high degree of parallelism
 useful with a lower degree of parallelism.
 less useful in a highly parallel system,

Query Optimization
 Query optimization in parallel databases is significantly more complex

than query optimization in sequential databases.
 Cost models are more complicated, since we must take into account
partitioning costs and issues such as skew and resource contention.
 When scheduling execution tree in parallel system, must decide:
 How to parallelize each operation and how many processors to use for it.
 What operations to pipeline, what operations to execute independently in
parallel, and what operations to execute sequentially, one after the other.
 Determining the amount of resources to allocate for each operation is a
problem.
 E.g., allocating more processors than optimal can result in high
communication overhead.
 Long pipelines should be avoided as the final operation may wait a lot
for inputs, while holding precious resources

Query Optimization (Cont.)
 The number of parallel evaluation plans from which to choose from is

much larger than the number of sequential evaluation plans.
 Therefore heuristics are needed while optimization
 Two alternative heuristics for choosing parallel plans:
 No pipelining and inter-operation pipelining; just parallelize every operation
across all processors.
 Finding best plan is now much easier --- use standard optimization
technique, but with new cost model
 Volcano parallel database popularize the exchange-operator model
– exchange operator is introduced into query plans to partition and
distribute tuples
– each operation works independently on local data on each
processor, in parallel with other copies of the operation
 First choose most efficient sequential plan and then choose how best to
parallelize the operations in that plan.
 Can explore pipelined parallelism as an option
 Choosing a good physical organization (partitioning technique) is
important to speed up queries.

Design of Parallel Systems
Some issues in the design of parallel systems:

 Parallel loading of data from external sources is needed in order
to handle large volumes of incoming data.
 Resilience to failure of some processors or disks.
 Probability of some disk or processor failing is higher in a parallel
system.
 Operation (perhaps with degraded performance) should be possible
in spite of failure.
 Redundancy achieved by storing extra copy of every data item at
another processor.

Design of Parallel Systems (Cont.)
 On-line reorganization of data and schema changes must be

supported.
 For example, index construction on terabyte databases can take
hours or days even on a parallel system.
 Need to allow other processing (insertions/deletions/updates) to
be performed on relation even as index is being constructed.
 Basic idea: index construction tracks changes and ``catches up'‘ on
changes at the end.
 Also need support for on-line repartitioning and schema changes
(executed concurrently with other processing).

End of Chapter

I/O Parallelism Interquery Parallelism Intraquery Parallelism Intraoperation Parallelism Interoperation Parallelism Design of Parallel Systems

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

I/O Parallelism Interquery Parallelism Intraquery Parallelism Intraoperation Parallelism Interoperation Parallelism Design of Parallel Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I/O Parallelism Interquery Parallelism Intraquery Parallelism Intraoperation Parallelism Interoperation Parallelism Design of Parallel Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 20: Parallel Databases

Database System Concepts 20.1 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Parallel machines are becoming quite common and affordable

Database System Concepts 20.2 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Data can be partitioned across multiple disks for parallel I/O.

Database System Concepts 20.3 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Reduce the time required to retrieve relations from disk by partitioning

Database System Concepts 20.4 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Partitioning techniques (cont.):

Database System Concepts 20.5 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Evaluate how well partitioning techniques support the following

Database System Concepts 20.6 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.7 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.8 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.9 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.10 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 The distribution of tuples to disks may be skewed — that is,

Database System Concepts 20.11 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 To create a balanced partitioning vector (assuming partitioning

Database System Concepts 20.12 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.13 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Skew in range partitioning can be handled elegantly using

Database System Concepts 20.14 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.15 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Example of a cache coherency protocol for shared disk systems:

Database System Concepts 20.16 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Execution of a single query in parallel on multiple

Database System Concepts 20.17 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Our discussion of parallel algorithms assumes:

Database System Concepts 20.18 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.19 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Parallel External Sort-Merge

Database System Concepts 20.20 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 The join operation requires pairs of tuples to be tested to see if

Database System Concepts 20.21 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.22 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.23 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Partitioning not possible for some join conditions

Database System Concepts 20.24 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 General case: reduces the sizes of the relations at each

Database System Concepts 20.26 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Both versions of fragment-and-replicate work with any join

Database System Concepts 20.27 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Parallelizing partitioned hash join:

Database System Concepts 20.28 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Once the tuples of s have been distributed, the larger relation r is

Database System Concepts 20.29 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.30 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.31 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.32 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Partition the relation on the grouping attributes and then compute

Database System Concepts 20.33 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 If there is no skew in the partitioning, and there is no overhead

Database System Concepts 20.34 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Database System Concepts 20.35 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

 Pipeline parallelism is useful since it avoids writing intermediate

Database System Concepts 20.36 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan