Download - Tinydb Tutorial
1
Implementation and Research Issues in Query Processing for Wireless
Sensor Networks
Wei Hong Intel Research, Berkeley
Sam MaddenMIT
MDM Tutorial, January 19th 2004
2
Motivation• Sensor networks (aka sensor webs, emnets) are here
– Several widely deployed HW/SW platforms• Low power radio, small processor, RAM/Flash
– Variety of (novel) applications: scientific, industrial, commercial
– Great platform for mobile + ubicomp experimentation
• Real, hard research problems to be solved– Networking, systems, languages, databases
• We will summarize:– The state of the art– Our experiences building TinyDB– Current and future research directions
Berkeley Mote
3
Sensor Network Apps
Traditional monitoring apparatus.
Earthquake monitoring in shake-test sites.
Vehicle detection: sensors along a road, collect data about passing vehicles.
Habitat Monitoring: Storm petrels on Great Duck Island, microclimates on James Reserve.
Just the tip of the iceberg -- more tomorrow!
4
Declarative Queries
• Programming Apps is Hard– Limited power budget– Lossy, low bandwidth communication– Require long-lived, zero admin deployments– Distributed Algorithms– Limited tools, debugging interfaces
• Queries abstract away much of the complexity– Burden on the database developers– Users get:
• Safe, optimizable programs• Freedom to think about apps instead of details
5
TinyDB: Prototype declarativequery processor
• Platform: Berkeley Motes + TinyOS• Continuous variant of SQL : TinySQL
• Power and data-acquisition based in-network optimization framework
• Extensible interface for aggregates, new types of sensors
6
Agenda
• Part 1 : Sensor Networks (50 Minutes)– TinyOS– NesC
• Short Break• Part 2: TinyDB (1 Hour)
– Data Model and Query Language– Software Architecture
• Long Break + Hands On• Part 3: Sensor Network Database
Research Directions (1 Hour, 10 Minutes)
7
Part 1
• Sensornet Background• Motes + Mote Hardware
– TinyOS– Programming Model + NesC
• TinyOS Architecture– Major Software Subsystems– Networking Services
8
A Brief History of Sensornets
• People have used sensors for a long time• Recent CS History:
– (1998) Pottie + Kaiser: Radio based networks of sensors
– (1998) Pister et al: Smart Dust• Initial focus on optical communication• By 1999, radio based networks, COTS Dust, “Motes”
– (1999) Estrin + Govindan• Ad-hoc networks of sensors
– (2000) Culler/Hill et al: TinyOS + Motes– (2002) Hill / Dust: SPEC, mm^3 scale computing
• UCLA / USC / Berkeley Continue to Lead Research•Many other players now•TinyOS/Motes as most common platform
• Emerging commercial space: • Crossbow, Ember, Dust, Sensicast, Moteiv, Intel
9
Why Now?
• Commoditization of radio hardware– Cellular and cordless phones, wireless
communication– (some radio pictures, etc.)
• Low cost -> many/tiny -> new applications!
• Real application for ad-hoc network research from the late 90’s
• Coming together of EE + CS communities
10
Motes
4Mhz, 8 bit Atmel RISC uProc
40 kbit Radio
4 K RAM, 128 K Program Flash, 512 K Data Flash
AA battery pack
Based on TinyOS
Mica MoteMica Mote
Mica2DotMica2Dot
11
History of Motes
• Initial research goal wasn’t hardware– Has since become more of a priority with
emerging hardware needs, e.g.:• Power consumption• (Ultrasonic) ranging + localization
– MIT Cricket, NEST Project• Connectivity with diverse sensors
– UCLA sensor board
– Even so, now on the 5th generation of devices• Costs down to ~$50/node (Moteiv, Dust)• Greatly improved radio quality• Multitude of interfaces: USB, Ethernet, CF, etc.• Variety of form factors, packages
12
Motes vs. Traditional Computing
• Lossy, Adhoc Radio Communication
• Sensing Hardware• Severe Power Constraints
13
Radio Communication
• Low Bandwidth Shared Radio Channel– ~40kBits on motes– Much less in practice
• Encoding, Contention for Media Access (MAC)
• Very lossy: 30% base loss rate– Argues against TCP-like end-to-end
retransmission• And for link-layer retries
• Generally, not well behaved
From Ganesan, et al. “Complex Behavior at Scale.” UCLA/CSD-TR 02-0013
14
Types of Sensors
• Sensors attach via daughtercard
•Weather–Temperature–Light x 2 (high intensity PAR, low intensity, full spectrum)–Air Pressure–Humidity
•Vibration–2 or 3 axis accelerometers
•Tracking–Microphone (for ranging and acoustic signatures)–Magnetometer
• GPS
15
Power Consumption and Lifetime
• Power typically supplied by a small battery– 1000-2000 mAH– 1 mAH = 1 milliamp current for 1 hour
• Typically at optimum voltage, current drain rates
– Power = Watts (W) = Amps (A) * Volts (V)– Energy = Joules (J) = W * time
• Lifetime, power consumption varies by application– Processor: 5mA active, 1 mA idle, 5 uA sleeping– Radio: 5 mA listen, 10 mA xmit/receive, ~20mS / packet– Sensors: 1 uA -> 100’s mA, 1 uS -> 1 S / sample
16
• Each mote collects 1 sample of (light,humidity) data every 10 seconds, forwards it
• Each mote can “hear” 10 other motes• Process:
– Wake up, collect samples (~ 1 second)– Listen to radio for messages to forward (~1
second)– Forward data
Power Consumption Breakdown
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Radio Sensors Processor
Hardware Element
Percentage of Total Power
Energy Usage in A Typical Data Collection Scenario
Processor Energy Breakdown
05
101520253035404550
Idle Waiting
for Radio
Waiting
for
Sensors
Sending
Processing Phase
Percentage of Total Energy
17
Sensors: Slow, Power Hungry, NoisyTime of Day vs. Light
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
20:09 20:38 21:07 21:36 22:04 22:33 23:02 23:31 0:00 0:28 0:57 1:26
Time of Day
Lux
Chamber Sensor
Sensor 69
Time of Day vs. Light
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
20:09 20:38 21:07 21:36 22:04 22:33 23:02 23:31 0:00 0:28 0:57 1:26
Time
Light (Lux)
Chamber Sensor
Sensor 69 (Median of Last 10)
18
Programming Sensornets: TinyOS
• Component Based Programming Model
• Suite of software components– Timers, clocks, clock synchronization– Single and multi-hop networking– Power management– Non-volatile storage management
19
Programming Philosophy
• Component Based– “Wiring” to components together via
interfaces, configurations
• Split-Phased– Nothing blocks, ever.– Instead, completion events are signaled.
• Highly Concurrent– Single thread of “tasks”, posted and
scheduled FIFO– Events “fired” asynchronously in response
to interrupts.
20
NesC
• C-like programming language with component model support– Compiles into GCC-compatible C
• 3 types of files:– Interfaces
• Set of function prototypes; no implementations or variables– Modules
• Provide (implement) zero or more interfaces• Require zero or more interfaces• May define module variables, scoped to functions in module
– Configurations• Wire (connect) modules according to requires/provides
relationship
21
Component Example: Leds
module LedsC { provides interface Leds;}implementation{ uint8_t ledsOn;
enum { RED_BIT = 1, GREEN_BIT = 2, YELLOW_BIT = 4 };
…. async command result_t Leds.redOn() { dbg(DBG_LED, "LEDS: Red on.\n"); atomic { TOSH_CLR_RED_LED_PIN(); ledsOn |= RED_BIT; } return SUCCESS; }….}
22
Configuration Example
configuration CntToLedsAndRfm {}implementation { components Main, Counter, IntToLeds, IntToRfm, TimerC;
Main.StdControl -> Counter.StdControl; Main.StdControl -> IntToLeds.StdControl; Main.StdControl -> IntToRfm.StdControl; Main.StdControl -> TimerC.StdControl; Counter.Timer -> TimerC.Timer[unique("Timer")]; IntToLeds <- Counter.IntOutput; Counter.IntOutput -> IntToRfm;}
23
Split Phase Examplemodule IntToRfmM { … }implementation { …command result_t IntOutput.output (uint16_t value) { IntMsg *message = (IntMsg *)data.data; if (!pending) { pending = TRUE; message->val = value; atomic { message->src = TOS_LOCAL_ADDRESS; } if (call Send.send(TOS_BCAST_ADDR, sizeof(IntMsg), &data)) return SUCCESS; pending = FALSE; } return FAIL; }
event result_t Send.sendDone (TOS_MsgPtr msg,
result_t success) { if (pending && msg == &data) { pending = FALSE; signal IntOutput.outputComplete (success); } return SUCCESS; }}
}
24
Major Components
• Timers: Clock, TimerC, LogicalTime
• Networking: Send, GenericComm, AMStandard, lib/Route
• Power Management: HPLPowerManagement
• Storage Management: EEPROM, MatchBox
25
Timers
• Clock: Basic abstraction over hardware timers; periodic events, single frequency.
• LogicalTime: Fire an event some number of H:M:S:ms in the future.
• TimerC: Multiplex multiple periodic timers on top of LogicalTime.
26
Radio Stack• Interfaces:
– Send• Broadcast, or to a specific ID• split phase
– Receive• asynchronous signal
• Implementations:– AMStandard
• Application specific messages• Id-based dispatch
– GenericComm• AMStandard + Serial IO
– Lib/Route• Mulithop
IntMsg *message = (IntMsg *)data.data;…message->val = value;atomic { message->src = TOS_LOCAL_ADDRESS;}call Send.send(TOS_BCAST_ADDR, sizeof(IntMsg), &data))
event TOS_MsgPtr ReceiveIntMsg.receive(TOS_MsgPtr m) {
IntMsg *message = (IntMsg *)m->data; call IntOutput.output(message->val); return m; }
Wiring to equate IntMsg to ReceiveIntMsg
27
Multihop Networking
• Standard implementation “tree based routing”
A
B C
D
FE
B B
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B BB
R:{…}
R:{…}
R:{…}
R:{…} R:{…}
Problems:
Parent SelectionAsymmetric LinksAdaptation vs. Stability
Node DNeigh QualB .75C .66E .45F .82
Node CNeigh QualA .5B .44D .53F .35
28
Geographic Routing• Any-to-any routing via geographic
coordinates– See “GPSR”, MOBICOM 2000, Karp + Kung.
A
B
•Requires coordinate system*
•Requires endpont coordinates
•Hard to route around local minima (“holes”)
*Could be virtual, as in Rao et al “Geographic Routing Without Coordinate Information.” MOBICOM 2003
29
Power Management
• HPLPowerManagement– TinyOS sleeps processor when possible– Observes the radio, sensor, and timer state
• Application managed, for the most part– App. must turn off subsystems when not in use– Helper utility: ServiceScheduler
• Peridically calls the “start” and “stop” methods of an app
– More on power management in TinyDB later– Approach works because:
• single application• no interactivity requirements
30
Non-Volatile Storage
• EEPROM– 512K off chip, 32K on chip– Writes at disk speeds, reads at RAM speeds– Interface : random access, read/write 256 byte
pages– Maximum throughput ~10Kbytes / second
• MatchBox Filing System– Provides a Unix-like file I/O interface– Single, flat directory– Only one file being read/written at a time
31
TinyOS: Getting Started
• The TinyOS home page:– http://webs.cs.berkeley.edu/tinyos– Start with the tutorials!
• The CVS repository– http://sf.net/projects/tinyos
• The NesC Project Page– http://sf.net/projects/nescc
• Crossbow motes (hardware):– http://www.xbow.com
• Intel Imote– www.intel.com/research/exploratory/motes.htm.
32
Part 2
The Design and Implementation of TinyDB
33
Part 2 Outline
• TinyDB Overview• Data Model and Query Language• TinyDB Java API and Scripting• Demo with TinyDB GUI• TinyDB Internals• Extending TinyDB• TinyDB Status and Roadmap
34
TinyDB RevisitedSELECT MAX(mag) FROM sensors WHERE mag > threshSAMPLE PERIOD 64ms
• High level abstraction:– Data centric programming– Interact with sensor
network as a whole– Extensible framework
• Under the hood:– Intelligent query
processing: query optimization, power efficient execution
– Fault Mitigation: automatically introduce redundancy, avoid problem areas
App
Sensor Network
TinyDB
Query, Trigger
Data
35
Feature Overview
• Declarative SQL-like query interface• Metadata catalog management• Multiple concurrent queries• Network monitoring (via queries)• In-network, distributed query processing• Extensible framework for attributes,
commands and aggregates• In-network, persistent storage
36
TinyDB GUI
TinyDB Client APIDBMS
Sensor network
Architecture
TinyDB query processor
0
4
0
1
5
2
6
3
7
JDBC
Mote side
PC side
8
37
Data Model
• Entire sensor network as one single, infinitely-long logical table: sensors
• Columns consist of all the attributes defined in the network
• Typical attributes:– Sensor readings– Meta-data: node id, location, etc.– Internal states: routing tree parent, timestamp, queue
length, etc.• Nodes return NULL for unknown attributes• On server, all attributes are defined in catalog.xml• Discussion: other alternative data models?
38
Query Language (TinySQL)
SELECT <aggregates>, <attributes>
[FROM {sensors | <buffer>}][WHERE <predicates>][GROUP BY <exprs>][SAMPLE PERIOD <const> |
ONCE][INTO <buffer>][TRIGGER ACTION <command>]
39
Comparison with SQL
• Single table in FROM clause• Only conjunctive comparison predicates
in WHERE and HAVING• No subqueries• No column alias in SELECT clause• Arithmetic expressions limited to
column op constant• Only fundamental difference: SAMPLE
PERIOD clause
40
TinySQL Examples
SELECT nodeid, nestNo, lightFROM sensorsWHERE light > 400EPOCH DURATION 1s
1EpocEpoc
hhNodeiNodei
ddnestNnestN
ooLightLight
0 1 17 455
0 2 25 389
1 1 17 422
1 2 25 405
Sensors
“Find the sensors in bright nests.”
41
TinySQL Examples (cont.)
Epoch region CNT(…) AVG(…)
0 North 3 360
0 South 3 520
1 North 3 370
1 South 3 520
“Count the number occupied nests in each loud region of the island.”
SELECT region, CNT(occupied) AVG(sound)
FROM sensors
GROUP BY region
HAVING AVG(sound) > 200
EPOCH DURATION 10s
3
Regions w/ AVG(sound) > 200
SELECT AVG(sound)
FROM sensors
EPOCH DURATION 10s
2
42
Event-based Queries
• ON event SELECT …• Run query only when interesting events
happens• Event examples
– Button pushed– Message arrival– Bird enters nest
• Analogous to triggers but events are user-defined
43
Query over Stored Data
• Named buffers in Flash memory• Store query results in buffers• Query over named buffers• Analogous to materialized views• Example:
– CREATE BUFFER name SIZE x (field1 type1, field2 type2, …)
– SELECT a1, a2 FROM sensors SAMPLE PERIOD d INTO name
– SELECT field1, field2, … FROM name SAMPLE PERIOD d
44
Using the Java API
• SensorQueryer– translateQuery() converts TinySQL string into
TinyDBQuery object– Static query optimization
• TinyDBNetwork– sendQuery() injects query into network– abortQuery() stops a running query– addResultListener() adds a ResultListener that is
invoked for every QueryResult received– removeResultListener()
• QueryResult– A complete result tuple, or– A partial aggregate result, call mergeQueryResult()
to combine partial results• Key difference from JDBC: push vs. pull
45
Writing Scripts with TinyDB
• TinyDB’s text interface– java net.tinyos.tinydb.TinyDBMain –
run “select …”– Query results printed out to the
console– All motes get reset each time new
query is posed• Handy for writing scripts with shell,
perl, etc.
46
Using the GUI Tools
• Demo time
47
Inside TinyDB
TinyOS
Schema
Query Processor
Multihop Network
Filterlight >
400get (‘temp’)
Aggavg(tem
p)
QueriesSELECT AVG(temp) WHERE light > 400
ResultsT:1, AVG: 225T:2, AVG: 250
Tables Samples got(‘temp’)
Name: tempTime to sample: 50 uSCost to sample: 90 uJCalibration Table: 3Units: Deg. FError: ± 5 Deg FGet f : getTempFunc()…
getTempFunc(…)getTempFunc(…)
TinyDBTinyDB
~10,000 Lines Embedded C Code
~5,000 Lines (PC-Side) Java
~3200 Bytes RAM (w/ 768 byte heap)
~58 kB compiled code
(3x larger than 2nd largest TinyOS Program)
48
Tree-based Routing
• Tree-based routing– Used in:
• Query delivery • Data collection• In-network aggregation
– Relationship to indexing?
A
B C
D
FE
Q:SELECT …
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q QQ
R:{…}
R:{…}
R:{…}
R:{…} R:{…}
49
Power Management Approach
Coarse-grained app-controlled communication scheduling
1
2
3
4
5
Mote ID
time
Epoch (10s -100s of seconds)
2-4s Waking Period
… zzz … … zzz …
50
Time Synchronization
• All messages include a 5 byte time stamp indicating system time in ms– Synchronize (e.g. set system time to timestamp) with
• Any message from parent• Any new query message (even if not from parent)
– Punt on multiple queries– Timestamps written just after preamble is xmitted
• All nodes agree that the waking period begins when (system time % epoch dur = 0)– And lasts for WAKING_PERIOD ms
• Adjustment of clock happens by changing duration of sleep cycle, not wake cycle.
51
Extending TinyDB
• Why extending TinyDB?– New sensors attributes– New control/actuation commands– New data processing logic
aggregates– New events
• Analogous to concepts in object-relational databases
52
Adding Attributes
• Types of attributes– Sensor attributes: raw or cooked
sensor readings– Introspective attributes: parent,
voltage, ram usage, etc.– Constant attributes: constant values
that can be statically or dynamically assigned to a mote, e.g., nodeid, location, etc.
53
Adding Attributes (cont)
• Interfaces provided by Attr component– StdControl: init, start, stop– AttrRegister
• command registerAttr(name, type, len)• event getAttr(name, resultBuf, errorPtr)• event setAttr(name, val)• command getAttrDone(name, resultBuf, error)
– AttrUse• command startAttr(attr)• event startAttrDone(attr)• command getAttrValue(name, resultBuf, errorPtr)• event getAttrDone(name, resultBuf, error)• command setAttrValue(name, val)
54
Adding Attributes (cont)
• Steps to adding attributes to TinyDB1) Create attribute nesC components2) Wire new attribute components to
TinyDBAttr configuration 3) Reprogram TinyDB motes4) Add new attribute entries to catalog.xml
• Constant attributes can be added on the fly through TinyDB GUI
55
Adding Aggregates
• Step 1: wire new nesC components
56
Adding Aggregates (cont)
• Step 2: add entry to catalog.xml<aggregate>
<name>AVG</name><id>5</id><temporal>false</temporal><readerClass>net.tinyos.tinydb.AverageClass</readerClass>
</aggregate>
• Step 3 (optional): implement reader class in Java– a reader class interprets and finalizes aggregate
state received from the mote network, returns final result as a string for display.
57
TinyDB Status
• Latest released with TinyOS 1.1 (9/03)– Install the task-tinydb package in TinyOS 1.1
distribution– First release in TinyOS 1.0 (9/02)– Widely used by research groups as well as industry pilot
projects
• Successful deployments in Intel Berkeley Lab and redwood trees at UC Botanical Garden– Largest deployment: ~80 weather station nodes– Network longevity: 4-5 months
58
The Redwood Tree Deployment
• Redwood Grove in UC Botanical Garden, Berkeley
• Collect dense sensor readings to monitor climatic variations across– altitudes,– angles,– time,– forest locations, etc.
• Versus sporadic monitoring points with 30lb loggers!
• Current focus: study how dense sensor data affect predictions of conventional tree-growth models
59
Humidity vs. Time
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Rel Humidity (%)
101 104 109 110 111
Data from Redwoods
36m
33m: 111
32m: 110
30m: 109,108,107
20m: 106,105,104
10m: 103, 102, 101
Temperature vs. Time
8
13
18
23
28
33
7/7/039:40
7/7/0313:11
7/7/0316:43
7/7/0320:15
7/7/0323:46
7/8/033:18
7/8/036:50
7/8/0310:21
7/8/0313:53
7/8/0317:25
7/8/0320:56
7/9/030:28
7/9/034:00
7/9/037:31
7/9/0311:03
Date
Temperature (C)
60
TinyDB Roadmap (near term)
• Support for high frequency sampling– Equipment vibration monitoring, structural
monitoring, etc.– Store and forward– Bulk reliable data transfer– Scheduling of communications
• Port to Intel Mote• Deployment in Intel Fab equipment monitoring
application and the Golden Gate Bridge monitoring application
61
For more information
• http://berkeley.intel-research.net/tinydb or http://triplerock.cs.bekeley.edu/tinydb
62
Part 3
Database Research Issues in Sensor Networks
63
Sensor Network Research
• Very active research area– Can’t summarize it all
• Focus: database-relevant research topics– Some outside of Berkeley– Other topics that are itching to be scratched– But, some bias towards work that we find
compelling
64
Topics
• In-network aggregation• Acquisitional Query Processing• Heterogeneity• Intermittent Connectivity• In-network Storage• Statistics-based summarization and
sampling• In-network Joins• Adaptivity and Sensor Networks• Multiple Queries
65
Topics
• In-network aggregation• Acquisitional Query Processing• Heterogeneity• Intermittent Connectivity• In-network Storage• Statistics-based summarization and
sampling• In-network Joins• Adaptivity and Sensor Networks• Multiple Queries
66
Tiny Aggregation (TAG)
• In-network processing of aggregates– Common data analysis operation
• Aka gather operation or reduction in || programming
– Communication reducing• Operator dependent benefit
– Across nodes during same epoch
• Exploit query semantics to improve efficiency!
Madden, Franklin, Hellerstein, Hong. Tiny AGgregation (TAG), OSDI 2002.
67
Basic Aggregation
• In each epoch:– Each node samples local sensors once– Generates partial state record (PSR)
• local readings • readings from children
– Outputs PSR during assigned comm. interval
• At end of epoch, PSR for whole network output at root
• New result on each successive epoch
• Extras:– Predicate-based partitioning via GROUP BY
1
2 3
4
5
68
Illustration: Aggregation
1 2 3 4 5
4 1
3
2
1
4
1
2 3
4
5
1
Sensor #
Inte
rval #
Interval 4SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors
Epoch
69
Illustration: Aggregation
1 2 3 4 5
4 1
3 2
2
1
4
1
2 3
4
5
2
Sensor #
Interval 3SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors
Inte
rval #
70
Illustration: Aggregation
1 2 3 4 5
4 1
3 2
2 1 3
1
4
1
2 3
4
5
31
Sensor #
Interval 2SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors
Inte
rval #
71
Illustration: Aggregation
1 2 3 4 5
4 1
3 2
2 1 3
1 5
4
1
2 3
4
5
5
Sensor #
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors Interval 1
Inte
rval #
72
Illustration: Aggregation
1 2 3 4 5
4 1
3 2
2 1 3
1 5
4 1
1
2 3
4
5
1
Sensor #
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors Interval 4
Inte
rval #
73
Aggregation Framework
• As in extensible databases, TinyDB supports any aggregation function conforming to:
Aggn={finit, fmerge, fevaluate}
Finit {a0} <a0>
Fmerge {<a1>,<a2>} <a12>
Fevaluate {<a1>} aggregate value
Example: AverageAVGinit {v} <v,1>
AVGmerge {<S1, C1>, <S2, C2>} < S1 + S2 , C1 + C2>
AVGevaluate{<S, C>} S/C
Partial State Record (PSR)
Restriction: Merge associative, commutative
74
Property Examples Affects
Partial State MEDIAN : unbounded, MAX : 1 record
Effectiveness of TAG
Monotonicity COUNT : monotonicAVG : non-monotonic
Hypothesis Testing, Snooping
Exemplary vs. Summary
MAX : exemplaryCOUNT: summary
Applicability of Sampling, Effect of Loss
Duplicate Sensitivity
MIN : dup. insensitive,AVG : dup. sensitive
Routing Redundancy
Taxonomy of Aggregates
• TAG insight: classify aggregates according to various functional properties– Yields a general set of optimizations that can automatically be
applied
Drives an API!
75
Use Multiple Parents
• Use graph structure – Increase delivery probability with no communication
overhead
• For duplicate insensitive aggregates, or• Aggs expressible as sum of parts
– Send (part of) aggregate to all parents• In just one message, via multicast
– Assuming independence, decreases variance
SELECT COUNT(*)
A
B C
R
A
B C
c
R
P(link xmit successful) = p
P(success from A->R) = p2
E(cnt) = c * p2
Var(cnt) = c2 * p2 * (1 – p2) V
# of parents = n
E(cnt) = n * (c/n * p2)
Var(cnt) = n * (c/n)2 * p2 * (1 – p2) = V/n
A
B C
c/n c/n
R
n = 2
76
Multiple Parents Results
• Better than previous analysis expected!
• Losses aren’t independent!
• Insight: spreads data over many links
Benefit of Result Splitting (COUNT query)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
(2500 nodes, lossy radio model, 6 parents per node)
Avg. COUNT
Splitting
No Splitting
Critical Link!
No Splitting With Splitting
77
Acquisitional Query Processing (ACQP)
• TinyDB acquires AND processes data
– Could generate an infinite number of samples
• An acqusitional query processor controls
– when,
– where,
– and with what frequency data is collected!
• Versus traditional systems where data is provided a priori
Madden, Franklin, Hellerstein, and Hong. The Design of An Acqusitional Query Processor. SIGMOD, 2003.
78
ACQP: What’s Different?• How should the query be processed?
– Sampling as a first class operation
• How does the user control acquisition?– Rates or lifetimes– Event-based triggers
• Which nodes have relevant data?– Index-like data structures
• Which samples should be transmitted?– Prioritization, summary, and rate control
79
• E(sampling mag) >> E(sampling light)
1500 uJ vs. 90 uJ
Operator Ordering: Interleave Sampling + Selection
SELECT light, magFROM sensorsWHERE pred1(mag)AND pred2(light)EPOCH DURATION 1s
(pred1)
(pred2)
mag
light
(pred1)
(pred2)
mag
light
(pred1)
(pred2)
mag light
Traditional DBMS
ACQP
At 1 sample / sec, total power savings could be as much as 3.5mW Comparable to processor!
Correct orderingCorrect ordering(unless pred1 is (unless pred1 is very very selective selective
and pred2 is not):and pred2 is not):
Cheap
Costly
80
Exemplary Aggregate Pushdown
SELECT WINMAX(light,8s,8s)FROM sensorsWHERE mag > xEPOCH DURATION 1s
• Novel, general pushdown technique
• Mag sampling is the most expensive operation!
WINMAX
(mag>x)
mag light
Traditional DBMS
light
mag
(mag>x)
WINMAX
(light > MAX)
ACQP
81
Topics
• In-network aggregation• Acquisitional Query Processing• Heterogeneity• Intermittent Connectivity• In-network Storage• Statistics-based summarization and sampling• In-network Joins• Adaptivity and Sensor Networks• Multiple Queries
82
Heterogeneous Sensor Networks
• Leverage small numbers of high-end nodes to benefit large numbers of inexpensive nodes
• Still must be transparent and ad-hoc• Key to scalability of sensor networks• Interesting heterogeneities
– Energy: battery vs. outlet power– Link bandwidth: Chipcon vs. 802.11x– Computing and storage: ATMega128 vs.
Xscale– Pre-computed results– Sensing nodes vs. QP nodes
83
Computing Heterogeneity with TinyDB
• Separate query processing from sensing– Provide query processing on a small number of nodes– Attract packets to query processors based on “service
value”• Compare the total energy consumption of the
network
• No aggregation• All aggregation• Opportunistic aggregation• HSN proactive
aggregation
Mark Yarvis and York Liu, Intel’s Heterogeneous Sensor
Network Project, ftp://download.intel.com/research/people/HSN_IR_Day_Poster_03.pdf.
84
5x7 TinyDB/HSN Mica2 Testbed
85
Data Packet SavingData Packet Saving
-50.00%
-45.00%
-40.00%
-35.00%
-30.00%
-25.00%
-20.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 All (35)
Number of Aggregator
% Change in Data Packet Count
Data Packet Saving - Aggregator Placement
-50.00%
-45.00%
-40.00%
-35.00%
-30.00%
-25.00%
-20.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
25 27 29 31 All (35)
Aggregator Location
% Change in Data Packet Counnt
• How many aggregators are desired?
• Does placement matter?
11% aggregators achieve 72% of max
data reduction
Optimal placement 2/3 distance from sink.
86
Occasionally Connected Sensornets
TinyDB QP
TinyDB QP
TinyDB QP
TinyDB Server
GTWY
Mobile GTWY
Mobile GTWYMobile GTWY
GTWYinternet
87
Occasionally Connected Sensornets Challenges
• Networking support– Tradeoff between reliability, power
consumption and delay– Data custody transfer: duplicates?– Load shedding– Routing of mobile gateways
• Query processing– Operation placement: in-network vs. on mobile
gateways– Proactive pre-computation and data movement
• Tight interaction between networking and QP
Fall, Hong and Madden, Custody Transfer for Reliable Delivery in Delay Tolerant Networks, http://www.intel-research.net/Publications/Berkeley/081220030852_157.pdf.
88
Distributed In-network Storage
• Collectively, sensornets have large amounts of in-network storage
• Good for in-network consumption or caching
• Challenges– Distributed indexing for fast query
dissemination– Resilience to node or link failures– Graceful adaptation to data skews– Minimizing index insertion/maintenance cost
89
Example: DIM• Functionality
– Efficient range query for multidimensional data.
• Approaches– Divide sensor field into
bins.– Locality preserving
mapping from m-d space to geographic locations.
– Use geographic routing such as GPSR.
• Assumptions– Nodes know their
locations and network boundary
– No node mobility
E2= <0.6, 0.7>E1 = <0.7, 0.8>
Q1=<.5-.7, .5-1>
Xin Li, Young Jin Kim, Ramesh Govindan and Wei Hong, Distributed Index for Multi-dimentional Data (DIM) in Sensor Networks, SenSys 2003.
90
Statistical Techniques
• Approximations, summaries, and sampling based on statistics
• Applications:– Limited bandwidth and large number
of nodes -> data reduction– Lossiness -> predictive modeling– Uncertainty -> tracking correlations
and changes over time
91
IDSQ
• Idea: task sensors in order of best improvement to estimate of some value:– Choose leader(s)
• Suppress subordinates• Task subordinates, one at a time
– Until some measure of goodness (error bound) is met
» E.g. “Mahalanobis Distance” -- Accounts for correlations in axes, tends to favor minimizing principal axis
See “Scalable Information-Driven Sensor Querying and Routing for ad hoc Heterogeneous Sensor Networks.” Chu, Haussecker and Zhao. Xerox TR P2001-10113. May, 2001.
92
Model location estimate as a point with 2-dimensional Gaussian uncertainty.
Graphical Representation
Principal Axis
S1
Residual 1
Preferred because it reduces error along principal axis
Residual 2 S2
Area of residuals is equal
93
In-Net Regression
• Linear regression : simple way to predict future values, identify outliers
• Regression can be across local or remote values, multiple dimensions, or with high degree polynomials– E.g., node A readings vs. node B’s– Or, location (X,Y), versus temperature
E.g., over many nodes
X vs Y w/ Curve Fit
y = 0.9703x - 0.0067
R2 = 0.947
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 3 5 7 9Guestrin, Thibaux, Bodik, Paskin, Madden. “Distributed Regression: an Efficient
Framework for Modeling Sensor Network Data .” Under submission.
94
In-Net Regression (Continued)
• Problem: may require data from all sensors to build model
• Solution: partition sensors into overlapping “kernels” that influence each other– Run regression in each kernel
• Requiring just local communication
– Blend data between kernels– Requires some clever matrix manipulation
• End result: regressed model at every node– Useful in failure detection, missing value
estimation
95
Correlated Attributes
• Data in sensor networks is correlated; e.g.,– Temperature and voltage– Temperature and light– Temperature and humidity– Temperature and time of day– etc.
96
Exploiting Correlations in Query Processing
• Simple idea: – Given predicate P(A) over expensive attribute A– Replace it with P’ over cheap attribute A’ such
that P’ evaluates to P – Problem: unless A and A’ are perfectly
correlated, P’ ≠ P for all time• So we could incorrectly accept or reject some readings
• Alternative: use correlations to improve selectivity estimates in query optimization– Construct conditional plans that vary predicate
order based on prior observations
97
Exploiting Correlations (Cont.)
• Insight: by observing a (cheap and correlated) variable not involved in the query, it may be possible to improve query performance – Improves estimates of selectivities
• Use conditional plans• Example
Light > 100 Lux
Temp < 20° C
Cost = 100Selectivity = .5
Cost = 100Selectivity = .5
Expected Cost = 150
Light > 100 Lux
Temp < 20° C
Cost = 100Selectivity = .5
Cost = 100Selectivity = .5
Expected Cost = 150
Light > 100 Lux
Temp < 20° C
Cost = 100Selectivity = .1
Cost = 100Selectivity = .9
Expected Cost = 110
Light > 100 Lux
Temp < 20° C
Cost = 100Selectivity = .1
Cost = 100Selectivity = .9
Expected Cost = 110
Time in [6pm, 6am]
T
F
98
In-Network Join Strategies
• Types of joins: – non-sensor -> sensor– sensor -> sensor
• Optimization questions:– Should the join be pushed down?– If so, where should it be placed?– What if a join table exceeds the
memory available on one node?
99
Choosing Where to Place Operators
• Idea : choose a “join node” to run the operator
• Over time, explore other candidate placements– Nodes advertise data rates to their neighbors– Neighbors compute expected cost of running the
join based on these rates– Neighbors advertise costs– Current join node selects a new, lower cost node
Bonfils + Bonnet, Adaptive and Decentralized Operator Placement for In-Network QueryProcessing IPSN 2003.
100
Topics
• In-network aggregation• Acquisitional Query Processing• Heterogeneity• Intermittent Connectivity• In-network Storage• Statistics-based summarization and
sampling• In-network Joins• Adaptivity and Sensor Networks• Multiple Queries
101
Adaptivity In Sensor Networks
• Queries are long running• Selectivities change
– E.g. night vs day
• Network load and available energy vary• All suggest that some adaptivity is needed
– Of data rates or granularity of aggregation when optimizing for lifetimes
– Of operator orderings or placements when selectivities change (c.f., conditional plans for correlations)
• As far as we know, this is an open problem!
102
Multiple Queries and Work Sharing
• As sensornets evolve, users will run many queries simultaneously– E.g., traffic monitoring
• Likely that queries will be similar– But have different end points, parameters,
etc
• Would like to share processing, routing as much as possible
• But how? Again, an open problem.
103
Concluding Remarks
• Sensor networks are an exciting emerging technology, with a wide variety of applications
• Many research challenges in all areas of computer science– Database community included– Some agreement that a declarative interface is right
• TinyDB and other early work are an important first step
• But there’s lots more to be done!