|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| My Master of Science Thesis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Evaluating and Benchmarking Sophisticated Business |
 |
Analysis Applications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| My Objective Was: |
| * To Characterize the Modern Business Application |
| * To Find out the Measuring Considerations |
| * To Define a Set of Functional Requirements |
|
| Designing the benchmark that can be run on any system regardless |
| of hardware or operating system, by which a modern business application package is evaluated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| My Agenda Contained: |
| * Introduction (Benchmarks) |
| * Current Benchmarks & Limitations |
| * Modern Business Applications |
| - On Line Transaction Processing |
| - On Line Analytical Processing |
| - Data Warehouses |
| * Business Analysis Applications |
| - User & Business Requirements |
| - Capabilities & Services |
| - Considerations |
| - Difficulties & Bottlenecks |
| - Improving the Performance |
| - Evaluating & Benchmarking |
| - Measuring Considerations |
| * Conclusions & Suggestions for Future Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Cases Studied: |
| * TPC Benchmark C Performance Measurement & Reporting |
| * Evaluating & Benchmarking Both On-Line and Batch Components |
| * Evaluating & Benchmarking Decision Support Systems |
| * Evaluating & Benchmarking Data Warehouses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Conclusions: |
| * Introducing the infrastructure required to build an evaluating technique |
| and to design a benchmark for sophisticated business analysis applications. |
| * The characteristics of both OLTP and OLAP systems where studied and the major requirements were established. |
| * The Data Warehouse characteristics and features were analyzed in details, |
| including network performance considerations. |
| * A standard of standards from the available benchmarks was founded and |
| analyzed to clearly diagnose the major concepts required on designing a |
| benchmark for such types of applications, taking into consideration the |
| difficulties & bottlenecks in the design stage & the measuring |
| considerations in the techniques used in improving performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Suggestions for Future Work: |
| * Establishing a set of benchmark rules. |
| * Finding an appropriate approach to design the benchmark by defining a |
| leveled set of declarative, procedural, and contextual knowledge, capable |
| of representing complex business relationships and respond to changes in |
| business requirements. |
| * Implementing a generator of parameterized synthetic workload, including the additional loads, that will be downloaded to the target machine. |
| * Simulating the designed benchmark and the system, with all the necessary production-oriented features, including backup & recovery. |
| * Considering other factors when implementing the simulated system: |
| - Parameterizing both complex queries & that must access massive amount of data. |
| - Measuring the advanced parallel technology for massive queries |
| - Testing of performance optimized SQL queries generators |
| * A set of run tools must be defined & supplied with the benchmark to build and run it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thanks to God for every achievement in my life. |
|
| I would like to express my deep thanks and great appreciation for Prof. Dr. |
| Magdy Nagi for his precious attention, continuous help, valuable guidance, |
| and patience. |
|
| My sincere thanks and gratitude to Prof. Dr. Salah Selim for his support, |
| advice, and encouragement. |
|
| Finally, my thanks for all my friends for their sustenance and moral support. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Presentaion of my masters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| My Mom and Dad with my son Rimo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Anon Et Al, "A Measure of Transaction Processing Power", Benchmarking Database |
Systems February 1985. |
|
[2] Elaine Appleton, "Data warehouse with an OLAP view", Datamation, April 1996. [Online]. |
|
|
[3] John Bair, "Supporting Temporal Data in a Warehouse", 1996. [Online]. |
|
|
[4] Richard Barr and Lawrence Seiford, "Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Tools |
for Manufacturing and Service Processes", National Science Foundation Design and Manufacturing Grantees Conference, Jan. 1996, |
|
|
[5] David Baum, "Warehouse Mania", LAN Time, Nov.95. [Online]. |
|
|
[6] Dina Bitton and Carolyn Turbyfill, "A Retrospective on the Wisconsin Benchmark", appears in Benchmarking Database Systems, pp. 422-441 |
|
[7] Red Brick, "About Data Warehouses: The Need and the Market", 1995. [Online]. |
|
|
[8] Red Brick, "The Data Warehouse: The Compatitive Advantage for the 1990s",A Red Brick |
Systems White Paper, 1995. [Online]. |
|
|
[9] Michael Carey, David Dewitt, Jeffrey Naughton, "The OO7 Benchmark", SIGMOD |
Conference 1993. |
|
[10] Gang Cheng, Marek Podgorny, NPAC, Syracuse University, "Parallel RDBMS and Decision |
Support System Benchmarking", March 1995. [Online]. |
|
|
|
|
[12] Charles Darling, "How to Integrate Your Data Warehouse", Datamation, May 1996. [Online]. |
|
|
[13] Marc Demarest, "Evaluating Data Warehouse Techniques: Oracle 7.1 Investigated". [Online]. |
|
|
[14] D. J. DeWitt, "The Wisconsin Benchmark: Past, Present, and Future,", appears in The |
Benchmark Handbook for Database and Transaction Processing Systems, DEC, Ed. Jim |
Gray, 1993, pp. 119-160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
