4.6 Article

NewSQL Database Management System Compiler Errors: Effectiveness and Usefulness

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
Volume 39, Issue 20, Pages 3936-3947

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2108648

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the error message qualities of four modern database management systems and finds that some of them provide more useful error messages, although these messages still have usability issues. The results are significant in further improving the usability of query language compilers, bridging the gap between human-computer interaction and query language compilers, and providing support for novice teaching.
Modern database management is often faced with a high number of concurrent end-users, and the need for database distribution to ensure fault tolerance and high throughput. To flexibly address these challenges, many modern database management systems (DBMS) provide highly automated and effortless, i.e., highly usable database distribution, deployment, and maintenance. However, the usability considerations are yet to extend from the aforementioned DBMS features to query language compilers. In this study, based on participant answers (N = 157), we compare the error message qualities of four modern DBMSs (CockroachDB, SingleStore, NuoDB, and VoltDB) using one objective and three subjective metrics. Our results show that some of the DBMSs provide the users with more useful error messages, even though many of these error messages violate even the most basic usability guidelines. These results (i) are applicable in further developing the usability aspects of query language compilers, (ii) provide a timely effort of bridging the gap between human-computer interaction and query language compilers, and (iii) offer suggestions on teaching novices, who require emphasized support in query formulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available