I have been a fan of LINQ for several years (my Saffron project covered many of the same themes) but I’ve had difficulty explaining why it isn’t just a better Hibernate. In his article “Why LINQ Matters: Cloud Composability Guaranteed” (initially in ACM Queue, now in April’s CACM), Brian Beckman puts his finger on it.
The idea is composability.
Encoding and transmitting such trees of operators across tiers of a distributed system have many specific benefits, most notably:
- Bandwidth savings from injecting filters closer to producers of data and streams, avoiding transmission of unwanted data back to consumers.
- Computational efficiency from performing calculations in the cloud, where available computing power is much greater than in clients.
- Programmability from offering generic transform and filter services to data consumers, avoiding the need for clairvoyant precanning of queries and data models at data-producer sites.
Databases have been doing this kind of stuff for years. There is a large performance difference between stored and in-memory data, and often several ways to access it, so the designers of the first databases took the decision about which algorithm to use out of the hands of the programmer. They created a query language out of a few theoretically well-behaved (and, not coincidentally, composable) logical operators, a set of composable physical operators to implement them, and a query planner to convert from one to the other. (Some call this component a “query optimizer”, but I prefer the more modest term.) Once the query planner was in place, they could re-organize not only the algorithms, but also the physical layout of the data (such as indexes and clustered tables) and the physical layout of the system (SMP and shared-nothing databases).
These days, there are plenty of other programming tasks that can benefit from the intervention of a planner that understands the algorithm. The data does not necessarily reside in a database (indeed, may not live on disk at all), but needs to be processed on a distributed system, connected by network links of varying latency, by multi-core machines with lots of memory.
What problems benefit from this approach? Problems whose runtime systems are complex, and where the decisions involve large factors. For example, “Is it worth writing my data to a network connection, which has 10,000x the latency of memory, if this will allow me to use 1000x more CPUs to process it?”. Yes, there are a lot of problems like that these days.
Beckman’s shout-out to composability is remarkable because it is something the database and programming language communities can agree on. But though they may agree about the virtues of composability, they took it in different directions. The database community discovered composability years ago, but then set their query language into stone, so you couldn’t add any more operators. Beckman is advocating writing programs using composable operators, but does not provide a framework for optimizing those operator trees.
LINQ stands for “Language-INtegrated Query”, but for these purposes, the important thing about LINQ is not that it is “language integrated”. It really doesn’t matter whether the front end to a LINQ system uses a “select”, “where” and “from” operator reminiscent of SQL:
or higher-order operators on collections:
or actual SQL embedded in JDBC:
All of the above formulations are equivalent, and each can be converted into the same intermediate form, a tree of operators.
What matters is what happens next: a planner behind the scenes converts the operator tree into an optimal algorithm. The planner understands what the programmer is asking for, the physical layout of the data sources, the statistics about the size and structure of the data, the resources available to process the data, and the algorithms that can implement available to accomplish that. The effect will be that the program always executes efficiently, even if the data and system are re-organized after the program has been written.
Query planner versus compiler
Composability is the secret sauce that powers query planners, including the one in LINQ. At first sight, a query planner seems to have a similar purpose to a programming language compiler. But a query planner is aiming to reap the large rewards, so it needs to consider radical changes to the operator tree. Those changes are only possible if the operators are composable, and sufficiently well-behaved to be described by a small number of transformation rules. A compiler does not consider global changes, so does not need a simple, composable language.
The differences between compiler and query planner go further. They run in different environments, and have different goals. Compared to a typical programming language compiler, a query planner…
- … plans later. A compiler optimizes at the time that the program is compiled; query planners optimize just before it is executed.
- … uses more information. A compiler uses the structure of the program; query planners use more information on the dynamic state of the system.
- … is involved in task scheduling. Whereas a compiler is quite separate from the task scheduler in the language’s runtime environment, the line between query planners and query schedulers is blurred. Resource availability is crucial to query planning.
- … optimizes over a greater scope. A compiler optimizes individual functions or modules; query planners optimize the whole query, or even the sequence of queries that make up a job.
- … deals with a simpler language. Programming languages aim to be expressive, so have many times more constructs than query languages. Query languages are (not by accident) simple enough to be optimized by a planner. (This property is what Beckman calls “composability”.)
- … needs to be more extensible. A compiler’s optimizer only needs to change when the language or the target platform changes, whereas a query planner needs to adapt to new front-end languages, algorithms, cost models, back-end data systems and data structures.
These distinctions over-generalize a little, but I am trying to illustrate a point. And I am also giving query planners an unfair advantage, contrasting a “traditional” compiler with a “still just a research project” planner. (Modern compilers, in particular just-in-time (JIT) compilers, share some of the dynamic aspects of query planners.) The point is that a compiler and a planner have different roles, and one should not imagine that one can do the job of the other.
The compiler allows you to write your program in at a high level of abstraction in a rich language; its task is to translate that complex programming language into a simpler machine representation. The planner allows your program to adapt to its runtime environment, by looking at the big picture. LINQ allows you to have both; its architecture provides a clear call-out from the compiler to the query planner. But it can be improved upon, and points to a system superior to LINQ, today’s database systems, and other data management systems such as Hadoop.
1. Beyond .NET. LINQ only runs on Microsoft’s .NET framework, yet Java is arguably the standard platform for data management. There should be front-ends for other JVM-based languages such as Scala and Clojure.
2. Extensible planner. Today’s database query planners work with a single query language (usually SQL), with a fixed set of storage structures and algorithms, usually requiring that data is brought into their database before they will query it. Planners should be allow application developers to add operators and rules. By these means, a planner could accept various query languages, target various data sources and data structures, and use various runtime engines.
3. Rule-driven. LINQ has already rescued data-oriented programming from the database community, and proven that a query planner can exist outside of a database. But to write a LINQ planner, you need to be a compiler expert. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Planners should be configurable by people who are neither database researchers nor compiler writers, by writing simple rules and operators. That would truly be data-oriented programming for the rest of us.