Paper: Jens Teubner, Rene Muller. “How Soccer Players Would Do Stream Joins”,
SIGMOD 2010.
Danica: The reviewer presents a detailed summary of the paper, focusing on the
contributions on the paper. The reviewer captures the main strong points and identifies
some of the main weak points of the paper. In particular, the reviewer mentions as
weak points that the execution of the algorithm on CPU is not described in the desired
detail and that it is not clear (i.e. there is no roadmap) about porting the approach to
GPU.
Farhan: The reviewer provides a brief summary of the paper and presents as a strong
point the intuitive hand-shake stream-join algorithm. The reviewer is not satisfied with
the absence of a sensitivity analysis on the performance of the proposed technique.
Finally, the reviewer would like to read a discussion about the applications, the
workloads and the relativity of the used benchmarks.
Pejman: The reviewer provides a brief overview of the paper and, finally, identifies as
strong points the algorithms itself and the strong evaluation. I disagree about the
evaluation, because I believe that more experiments would provide a clearer idea about
the behavior and the performance of the proposed algorithm. Finally, the reviewer sees
no weak points.
Pinar: The reviewer gives a brief overview of the paper and identifies the main strong
points: (i) a highly parallelizable and intuitive stream-join algorithm, (ii) which is
implemented in commodity hardware. Finally, the reviewer points out correctly that the
presented implementation is architecture dependent.
Renata: In the summary, the reviewer explains the problem and how handshake
stream-join works. Regarding the strong points the reviewer could have left out the
“sensitivity analysis” as I believe it could have been more thorough. Finally, the reviewer
is not satisfied with the comparison against CellJoin because of the difference in the
setup and the underlying hardware that was used, which is a fair comment.