Skip to main content

Self-Management Technology in Databases

  • Reference work entry

Synonyms

Self-managing database systems; Autonomic database systems; Self-tuning database systems; Auto-administration and auto-tuning of database systems

Definition

The total cost of ownership (TCO) for a database-centric information system is dominated by the expenses for highly skilled human staff in order to deploy, configure, administer, monitor, and tune the database system. Self-management technology for databases aims to automate these tasks to the largest possible extent and throughout the entire life-cycle of the information system. This involves many dimensions that determine the system performance and availability such as: workload analysis, capacity planning, physical database design, database statistics management for query optimization, load control, memory management, system-health monitoring, failure diagnosis and root-cause identification, configuration of backup procedures and other self-healing capabilities. The self-managing capabilities can be incorporated in a...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   2,500.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Recommended Reading

  1. Ailamaki A (ed.) Special issue on self-managing database systems. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 29(3):2006.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brown K.P., Mehta M., Carey M.J., and Livny M. Towards automated performance tuning for complex workloads. In Proc. 20th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bruno N. and Chaudhuri S. To tune or not to tune? A lightweight physical design alerter. In Proc. 32nd Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2006, pp. 499–510

    Google Scholar 

  4. Candea G., Brown A.B., Fox A., and Patterson D.A. 2004.Recovery-oriented computing: building multitier dependability. IEEE Comput., 37(11):60–67,

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chaudhuri S., König A.C., and Narasayya V.R. SQLCM: a continuous monitoring framework for relational database engines. In Proc. 20th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chaudhuri S. and Narasayya V.R. An efficient cost-driven index selection tool for microsoft SQL server. In Proc. 23th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chaudhuri S. and Narasayya V. Self-tuning database systems: a decade of progress. In Proc. 33rd Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chaudhuri S., Narasayya V., and Syamala M. Bridging the application and DBMS profiling divide for database application developers. In Proc. 33rd Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chaudhuri S., and Weikum G. Rethinking database system architecture: towards a self-tuning RISC-style database system. In Proc. 26th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Diao Y., Hellerstein J.L., Parekh S.S., Griffith R., Kaiser G.E., and Phung D.B. 2005.A control theory foundation for self-managing computing systems. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., 23(12):2213–2222,

    Google Scholar 

  11. Finkelstein S.J., Scholnick M., and Tiberio P. 1988.Physical database design for relational databases. ACM Trans Database Syst., 13(1):91–128,

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jiang N., Villafane R., Hua K.A., Sawant A., and Prabhakara K. 2005.ADMiRe: an algebraic data mining approach to system performance analysis. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 17(7):888–901,

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lazowska E.D., Zahorjan J., Scott Graham G., and Sevcik K.C.Quantitative system performance: computer analysis using queuing network models, Prentice-Hall, Englewood, Cliffs, NJ, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lightstone S. 2007.Seven software engineering principles for autonomic computing development. Innovations in Syst. and Softw. Eng., 3(1):71–74,

    Google Scholar 

  15. Menasce D.A. and Almeida V.A.F. Capacity Planning for Web Performance. Metrics, Models and Methods: Metrics, Models and Methods, Prentice-Hall, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Reiner D.S. and Pinkerton T.B. A method for adaptive performance improvement of operating systems. In Proc. 18th ACM Symp. on Operating System Principles, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stillger M., Lohman G.M., Markl V., and Kandil M. LEO – DB2’s LEarning Optimizer. In Proc. 27th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Weikum G., Hasse C., Moenkeberg A., and Zabback P. 1994.The COMFORT automatic tuning project. Inform. Syst., 19(5):381–432,

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weikum G., Moenkeberg A., Hasse C., and Zabback P. Self-tuning database technology and information services: from Wishful thinking to viable engineering. In Proc. 28th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wilkes J., Golding R.A., Staelin C., and Sullivan T. 1996.The HP AutoRAID hierarchical storage system. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 14(1):108–136,

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Chaudhuri, S., Weikum, G. (2009). Self-Management Technology in Databases. In: LIU, L., ÖZSU, M.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_334

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics