2000
DOI: 10.1007/s007780050081
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning response time for WebSources using query feedback and application in query optimization

Abstract: The rapid growth of the Internet and support for interoperability protocols has increased the number of Web accessible sources, WebSources. Current optimization technology for wrapper mediator architectures needs to be extended to estimate the response time (delays) to access WebSources and to use this delay in query optimization. In this paper, we present a Multi-Dimensional Table (MDT), a tool that is based on learning using query feedback from WebSources. We describe the MDT learning algorithms, and report … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A variety of agent-based approaches to service execution and coordination have also been proposed (Blake 2001). Learning approaches have been successfully deployed for characterizing web service response (Gruser et al 2000) and characterizing web services (Nie et al 2002). Middleware approaches build on current message oriented and distributed object models to provide a variety of system level services and address issues such as content-routing, XML compression and management.…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A variety of agent-based approaches to service execution and coordination have also been proposed (Blake 2001). Learning approaches have been successfully deployed for characterizing web service response (Gruser et al 2000) and characterizing web services (Nie et al 2002). Middleware approaches build on current message oriented and distributed object models to provide a variety of system level services and address issues such as content-routing, XML compression and management.…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Now the PM can choose either iLP 1 or iLP 2 to make a prediction for the client/server pair (c, s). It is also possible that there exists strong non-random associations between iLP 1 , iLP 2 and iLP 3 . In this case, the best estimate of access latency for (c, s) is possibly obtained by aggregating iLP 1 , iLP 2 and iLP 3 into an aggregate latency profile aLP , and choosing a representative profile.…”
Section: Wide Area Performance Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…iLP c,s (t, b) represents the end-to-end delay for a request from server s at time t, given as either a real number or using T O to represent a timeout. iLP c,s comes in two flavors, similar to [3]. One flavor measures time-to-first, which depends on factors such as workload at the server and size of the requested object.…”
Section: Individual and Aggregate Latency Profilesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Learning and other techniques are needed to construct cost models (Gruser et al, 2000;Nie et al, 2001). A variety of optimization approaches are needed, e.g., performance targets; alternate sources; adaptive evaluation strategies (special issue of IEEE Data Engineering 2001, edited by Hellerstein et al, 2002a.…”
Section: Scalable Performancementioning
confidence: 99%