Cost-Based Optimization of Integration Flows - Datenbanken ...
Cost-Based Optimization of Integration Flows - Datenbanken ...
Cost-Based Optimization of Integration Flows - Datenbanken ...
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
5 Multi-Flow <strong>Optimization</strong><br />
(a) Fixed w/p SEB (b) Poisson w/o SEB (c) Fixed w/ SEB<br />
Figure 5.20: Latency Time <strong>of</strong> Single Messages T L (m i )<br />
the computed waiting time (the higher the number <strong>of</strong> distinct items, the lower the waiting<br />
time). For both message arrival rate distribution functions D = fixed (see Figure 5.20(a))<br />
and D = poisson (see Figure 5.20(b)), the constraint is rarely exceeded. Essentially, the<br />
latency <strong>of</strong> single messages varies from almost zero to the latency constraint, where the<br />
few missed constraints (illustrates as plus in the plots) are caused by variations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
execution time. Note that the latency constraint is explicitly a s<strong>of</strong>t constraint, where<br />
we guarantee that it is not exceeded with statistical significance. The reason is that we<br />
compute the waiting time based on our cost estimation. If the real execution costs vary<br />
slightly around this estimate, there exist cases where the constraint is slightly exceeded as<br />
well. Furthermore, the constraint also holds for serialized external behavior (SEB), where<br />
all messages show more similar latency times (see Figure 5.20(c)) due to serialization at the<br />
outbound side. Thus, there is a lower variance <strong>of</strong> the latency time <strong>of</strong> single messages. Note<br />
that this is a worst-case scenario. Typically, we use a waiting time ∆tw at W (P ′ , k ′ ) = ∆tw<br />
that results in much lower latency time for single messages.<br />
Figure 5.21: Latency in Overload Situations<br />
The maximum latency constraint <strong>of</strong> single messages cannot be ensured if we are in<br />
overload situations. Therefore, we investigated the influence <strong>of</strong> the message rate R on<br />
the average latency time <strong>of</strong> single messages T L (m i ). We executed |M| = 1,000 messages<br />
with a selectivity <strong>of</strong> sel = 1.0 for unoptimized and optimized plans varying the message<br />
rate R ∈ [5 msg /s, 70 msg /s]. Figure 5.21 illustrates the results. For low message rates (no<br />
overload situation), we observe a minimal average latency <strong>of</strong> about 220 ms for both plans.<br />
For optimized plans, our optimizer achieved this by adjusting the waiting time to the<br />
execution time <strong>of</strong> plan instances with batch size one. After the message rate exceeded<br />
the execution time <strong>of</strong> the unoptimized plan, the average latency rapidly increases due<br />
to growing input message queues and the related waiting time. In contrast, for MFO,<br />
162