Distributed Query Optimization by Query Trading

  • Fragkiskos Pentaris
  • Yannis Ioannidis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2992)


Large-scale distributed environments, where each node is completely autonomous and offers services to its peers through external communication, pose significant challenges to query processing and optimization. Autonomy is the main source of the problem, as it results in lack of knowledge about any particular node with respect to the information it can produce and its characteristics. Inter-node competition is another source of the problem, as it results in potentially inconsistent behavior of the nodes at different times. In this paper, inspired by e-commerce technology, we recognize queries (and query answers) as commodities and model query optimization as a trading negotiation process. Query parts (and their answers) are traded between nodes until deals are struck with some nodes for all of them. We identify the key parameters of this framework and suggest several potential alternatives for each one. Finally, we conclude with some experiments that demonstrate the scalability and performance characteristics of our approach compared to those of traditional query optimization.


Execution Plan Query Optimization Remote Node Negotiation Protocol Query Answer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Navas, J.C., Wynblatt, M.: The Network is the Database: Data Management for Highly Distributed Systems. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 2001 Conference (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deshpande, A., Hellerstein, J.M.: Decoupled query optimization for federated database systems. In: Proc. of 18th. ICDE, San Jose, CA, pp. 716–727 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kossmann, D.: The state of the art in distributed query processing. ACM Computing Surveys (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stonebraker, M., Aoki, P.M., Litwin, W., Pfeller, A., Sah, A., Sidell, J., Staelin, C., Yu, A.: Mariposa: A wide-area distributed database system. VLDB Journal 5, 48–63 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bichler, M., Kaukal, M., Segev, A.: Multi-attribute auctions for electronic procurement. In: Proc. of the 1st IBM IAC Workshop on Internet Based Negotiation Technologies, Yorktown Heights, NY, March 18-19 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collins, J., Tsvetovat, M., Sundareswara, R., van Tonder, J., Gini, M.L., Mobasher, B.: Evaluating risk: Flexibility and feasibility in multi-agent contracting. In: Proc. of the 3rd Annual Conf. on Autonomous Agents, Seattle, WA, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parunak, H.V.D.: Manufacturing experience with the contract net. In: Huhns, M.N. (ed.) Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence, ch. 10, pp. 285–310. Pitman (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandholm, T.: Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artificial Intelligence 135, 1–54 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Su, S.Y., Huang, C., Hammer, J., Huang, Y., Li, H., Wang, L., Liu, Y., Pluempitiwiriyawej, C., Lee, M., Lam, H.: An internet-based negotiation server for e-commerce. VLDB Journal 10, 72–90 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, R.G.: The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers 29, 1104–1113 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pentaris, F., Ioannidis, Y.: Distributed query optimization by query trading (2003) (unpublished manuscript), Available at
  12. 12.
    Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Complexity results about nash equilibria. Technical report CMU-CS-02-135 (2002),
  13. 13.
    Ogston, E., Vassiliadis, S.: A Peer-to-Peer Agent Auction. In: Falcone, R., Barber, S.K., Korba, L., Singh, M.P. (eds.) AAMAS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2631, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kagel, J.H.: Auctions: A Survey of Experimental Research. In: Kagel, J.E., Roth, A.E. (eds.) The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kraus, S.: Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments (Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents). The MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenchein, J.S., Zlotkin, G.: Rules of Encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. The MIT Press series in artificial intelligence (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Selinger, P.G., Astrahan, M.M., Chamberlin, D.D., Lorie, R.A., Price, T.G.: Access path selection in a relational database management system. In: Proc. of 1979 ACM SIGMOD, pp. 22–34. ACM, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halevy, A.Y.: Answering queries using views: A survey. VLDB Journal 10, 270–294 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaharioudakis, M., Cochrane, R., Lapis, G., Pirahesh, H., Urata, M.: Answering complex sql queries using automatic summary tables. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 2000 Conference, pp. 105–116 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pottinger, R., Levy, A.: A scalable alogirthm for answering queries using views. In: Proc. of the 26th VLDB Conference, Cairo, Egypt (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levy, A.Y., Rajaraman, A., Ordille, J.J.: Querying heterogeneous information sources using source descriptions. In: Proc. of 22th Int. Conf. on VLDB, pp. 251–262 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qian, X.: Query folding. In: Proc. of ICDE, New Orleans, LA, pp. 48–55 (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vickrey, W.: Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 16, 8–37 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buyya, R., Abramson, D., Giddy, J., Stockinger, H.: Economic models for resource management and scheduling in grid computing. In: Proc. of Commercial Applications for High-Performance Computing Conference, SPIE International Symposium on The Convergence of Information Technologies and Communications (ITCom 2001), Denver, Colorado, August 20-24 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Yannakakis, M.: Multiobjective query optimization. In: Proc. of the 20th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on PODS, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, May 21-23, ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stonebraker, M., Aoki, P.M., Devine, R., Litwin, W., Olson, M.A.: Mariposa: A new architecture for distributed data. In: ICDE, pp. 54–65 (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mariposa: Mariposa distributed database management systems, User’s Manual (2002), Available at

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fragkiskos Pentaris
    • 1
  • Yannis Ioannidis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Informatics and TelecommunicationsUniversity of AthensIlisia, AthensHellas (Greece)

Personalised recommendations