Push versus pull-based loop fusion in query engines

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMIR SHAIKHHA ◽  
MOHAMMAD DASHTI ◽  
CHRISTOPH KOCH
Keyword(s):  
Programming Languages ◽  
Programming Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Database Query ◽  
Fusion Technique ◽  
Considerable Advantage ◽  
Query Engine ◽  
Loop Fusion ◽  
New Type ◽  
First Time

AbstractDatabase query engines use pull-based or push-based approaches to avoid the materialization of data across query operators. In this paper, we study these two types of query engines in depth and present the limitations and advantages of each engine. Similarly, the programming languages community has developed loop fusion techniques to remove intermediate collections in the context of collection programming. We draw parallels between databases (DB) and programming language (PL) research by demonstrating the connection between pipelined query engines and loop fusion techniques. Based on this connection, we propose a new type of pull-based engine, inspired by a loop fusion technique, which combines the benefits of both approaches. Then, we experimentally evaluate the various engines, in the context of query compilation, for the first time in a fair environment, eliminating the biasing impact of ancillary optimizations that have traditionally only been used with one of the approaches. We show that for realistic analytical workloads, there is no considerable advantage for either form of pipelined query engine, as opposed to what recent research suggests. Also, by using micro-benchmarks, which demonstrate certain edge cases on which one approach or the other performs better, we show that our proposed engine dominates the existing engines by combining the benefits of both.

Transforming Recursion to Iteration in Programming

2011 ◽  
pp. 3784-3788
Author(s):  
Athanasios Tsadiras
Keyword(s):  
Programming Languages ◽  
Programming Language ◽  
Recursive Algorithm ◽  
The Other ◽  
Recursive Call ◽  
Recursive Procedure ◽  
Memory Space ◽  
Space Efficiency ◽  
Recursive Programs ◽  
Number Of Iterations

The main advantage of a Recursive Algorithm (an algorithm defined in terms of itself) is that it can be easily described and easily implemented in a programming language (van Breughel, 1997). On the other hand, the efficiency of such an algorithm is relatively low because for every recursive call not yet terminated, a number of data should be maintained in a stack, causing time delays and requiring higher memory space (Rohl, 1984). Solving the same problem iteratively instead of recursively can improve time and space efficiency. For example, to solve a problem that involves N recursive procedure calls, it will require stack space linear to N. On the contrary, using iteration, the program will need a constant amount of space, independent of the number of iterations. There are programming languages, such as Prolog, that do not possess built-in iterative structures and so recursion should be used instead. Nevertheless, there are ways to write recursive programs that have similar behaviour with that of the corresponding iterative programs.

Structure of the Lipopolysaccharide Core Region of the Bacteria of the Genus Proteus

2002 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 61 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Vinogradov ◽  
Z. Sidorczyk ◽  
Y. A. Knirel
Keyword(s):  
Core Region ◽  
Core Structure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Carboxyl Group ◽  
Open Chain ◽  
Covalent Linkage ◽  
The Core ◽  
New Type ◽  
First Time ◽  
Chain Form

The lipopolysaccharide (LPS) core structure was studied in seven rough strains of Proteus and 26 smooth strains belonging to various Proteus O-serogroups. All LPSs share a common heptasaccharide fragment, which includes two Kdo, three Hep, one Glc, and one GalA residue. Core structures differ between strains and within each strain in the presence of a variety of additional monosaccharides and non-sugar substituents. In many strains, the LPS includes a cyclic acetal of GalNAc in the open-chain form, which builds up a new type of linkage between monosaccharides. The covalent linkage of aliphatic polyamines, e.g. putrescine and spermidine, to the LPS was confirmed for the first time and the location of the amines at the carboxyl group of a GalA residue established. Analyses revealed peculiar features of the core structure, which are characteristic of P. mirabilis on one hand and P. vulgaris and P. penneri on the other hand.

The lazy logic of partial terms

2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 1065-1077
Author(s):  
Raymond D. Gumb
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Programming Languages ◽  
Programming Language ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
The Other ◽  
Science Program ◽  
Free Logic ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Unary Function ◽  
Language Constructs

AbstractThe Logic of Partial TermsLPTis a strict negative free logic that provides an economical framework for developing many traditional mathematical theories having partial functions. In these traditional theories, all functions and predicates are strict. For example, if a unary function (predicate) is applied to an undefined argument, the result is undefined (respectively, false). On the other hand, every practical programming language incorporates at least one nonstrict or lazy construct, such as the if-then-else, but nonstrict functions cannot be either primitive or introduced in definitional extensions inLPT. Consequently, lazy programming language constructs do not fit the traditional mathematical mold inherent inLPT. A nonstrict (positive free) logic is required to handle nonstrict functions and predicates.Previously developed nonstrict logics are not fully satisfactory because they are verbose in describing strict functions (which predominate in many programming languages), and some logicians find their semantics philosophically unpalatable. The newly developed Lazy Logic of Partial TermsLLis as concise asLPTin describing strict functions and predicates, and strict and nonstrict functions and predicates can be introduced in definitional extensions of traditional mathematical theories.LLis “built on top of”LPT. and, likeLPT, admits only one domain in the semantics. In the semantics, for the case of a nonstrict unary functionhin an LL theoryT, we have ⊨Th(⊥) =y↔ ∀x(h(x) = y), where ⊥ is a canonical undefined term. Correspondingly, in the axiomatization, the “indifference” (to the value of the argument) axiomh(⊥) =y↔ ∀x(h(x) = y)guarantees a proper fit with the semantics. The price paid forLL's naturalness is that it is tailored for describing a specific area of computer science, program specification and verification, possibly limiting its role in explicating classical mathematical and philosophical subjects.

Darwin's two competing phylogenetic trees: marsupials as ancestors or sister taxa?

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Archibald
Keyword(s):  
Fossil Record ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Phylogenetic Trees ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charles Lyell ◽  
Single Origin ◽  
Molecular Studies ◽  
Richard Owen ◽  
First Time

Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen. Charles Lyell had held similar views to those of Owen, but it is clear from correspondence with Darwin that he was beginning to accept the idea of monophyly of major groups.

Sphagnum mosses (Sphagnaceae, Bryophyta) of mires Chefandzar and Masota in North Ossetia (Caucasus)

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 455-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Ya. Doroshina ◽  
I. A. Nikolajev
Keyword(s):  
Plant Communities ◽  
The Other ◽  
North Caucasus ◽  
Sphagnum Mosses ◽  
Greater Caucasus ◽  
The North ◽  
First Time ◽  
North Ossetia

Sphagnum mires on the Greater Caucasus are rare, characterized by the presence of relict plant communities of glacial age and are in a stage of degradation. The study of Sphagnum of Chefandzar and Masota mires is carried out for the first time. Seven species of Sphagnum are recorded. Their distribution and frequency within the North Caucasus are analyzed. Sphagnum contortum, S. platyphyllum, S. russowii, S. squarrosum are recorded for the first time for the study area and for the flora of North Ossetia. The other mosses found in the study area are listed.

An Epistemological Criticism of Social Entrepreneurship: Is Social Entrepreneurship a Sound Scientific Field of Research

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Forouharfar
Keyword(s):  
Social Entrepreneurship ◽  
Social Constructivism ◽  
Social Epistemology ◽  
American English ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Knowledge Structure ◽  
Scientific Field ◽  
The Other ◽  
First Time

The paper was shaped around the pivotal question: Is SE a sound and scientific field of research? The question has given a critical tone to the paper and has also helped to bring out some of the controversial debates in the realm of SE. The paper was organized under five main discussions to be able to provide a scientific answer to the research question: (1)<b> </b>is “social entrepreneurship” an oxymoron?, (2) the characteristics of SE knowledge, (3) sources of social entrepreneurship knowledge, (4) SE knowledge: structure and limitations and (5) contributing epistemology-making concepts for SE.<b> </b>Based on the sections,<b> </b>the study relied on the relevant philosophical schools of thought in <i>Epistemology </i>(e.g. <i>Empiricism</i>, <i>Rationalism</i>, <i>Skepticism</i>, <i>Internalism</i> vs. <i>Externalism</i>,<i> Essentialism, Social Constructivism</i>, <i>Social Epistemology, etc.</i>) to discuss these controversies around SE and proposes some solutions by reviewing SE literature. Also, to determine the governing linguistic discourse in the realm of SE, which was necessary for our discussion,<i> Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)</i> for the first time in SE studies was used. Further, through the study, SE buzzwords which constitute SE terminology were derived and introduced to help us narrowing down and converging the thoughts in this field and demarking the epistemological boundaries of SE. The originality of the paper on one hand lies in its pioneering discussions on SE epistemology and on the other hand in paving the way for a construction of sound epistemology for SE; therefore in many cases after preparing the philosophical ground for the discussions, it went beyond the prevalent SE literature through meta-analysis to discuss the cases which were raised. The results of the study verified previously claimed embryonic pre-paradigmatic phase in SE which was far from a sound and scientific knowledge, although the scholarly endeavors are the harbingers of such a possibility in the future which calls for further mature academic discussion and development of SE knowledge by the SE academia.

PERANGKAT LUNAK KOMPUTER

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cut Nabilah Damni
Keyword(s):  
Programming Languages ◽  
Programming Language ◽  
Operating Systems ◽  
Source Code ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Application Systems ◽  
Executable Programs

AbstrakSoftware komputer atau perangkat lunak komputer merupakan kumpulan instruksi (program atau prosedur) untuk dapat melaksanakan pekerjaan secara otomatis dengan cara mengolah atau memproses kumpulan intruksi (data) yang diberikan. (Yahfizham, 2019 : 19) Sebagian besar dari software komputer dibuat oleh (programmer) dengan menggunakan bahasa pemprograman. Orang yang membuat bahasa pemprograman menuliskan perintah dalam bahasa pemprograman seperti layaknya bahasa yang digunakan oleh orang pada umumnya dalam melakukan perbincangan. Perintah-perintah tersebut dinamakan (source code). Program komputer lainnya dinamakan (compiler) yang digunakan pada (source code) dan kemudian mengubah perintah tersebut kedalam bahasa yang dimengerti oleh komputer lalu hasilnya dinamakan program executable (EXE). Pada dasarnya, komputer selalu memiliki perangkat lunak komputer atau software yang terdiri dari sistem operasi, sistem aplikasi dan bahasa pemograman.AbstractComputer software or computer software is a collection of instructions (programs or procedures) to be able to carry out work automatically by processing or processing the collection of instructions (data) provided. (Yahfizham, 2019: 19) Most of the computer software is made by (programmers) using the programming language. People who make programming languages write commands in the programming language like the language used by people in general in conducting conversation. The commands are called (source code). Other computer programs called (compilers) are used in (source code) and then change the command into a language understood by the computer and the results are called executable programs (EXE). Basically, computers always have computer software or software consisting of operating systems, application systems and programming languages.

A Nabatean port on the Red Sea: note on the pottery finds from al-Qusayr (al-Wajh, Saudi Arabia)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Durand
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Red Sea ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Trade Routes ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Roman Egypt ◽  
Pottery Sherds ◽  
First Time

Al-Qusayr is located 40 km south of modern al-Wajh, roughly 7 km from the eastern Red Sea shore. This site is known since the mid-19th century, when the explorer R. Burton described it for the first time, in particular the remains of a monumental building so-called al-Qasr. In March 2016, a new survey of the site was undertaken by the al-‘Ula–al-Wajh Survey Project. This survey focused not only on al-Qasr but also on the surrounding site corresponding to the ancient settlement. A surface collection of pottery sherds revealed a striking combination of Mediterranean and Egyptian imports on one hand, and of Nabataean productions on the other hand. This material is particularly homogeneous on the chronological point of view, suggesting a rather limited occupation period for the site. Attesting contacts between Mediterranean merchants, Roman Egypt and the Nabataean kingdom, these new data allow a complete reassessment of the importance of this locality in the Red Sea trade routes during antiquity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document