A method for optimizing query routing in distributed databases to reduce latency and load

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32347/2411-4049.2026.2.274-286

Keywords:

distributed databases, query routing, load balancing, network latency, adaptive optimization

Abstract

This paper develops a query routing method for distributed databases that reduces network latency and achieves uniform load distribution across cluster nodes through a statistically grounded, autonomous adaptive tuning of scoring function weights.
A multi-factor scoring model is proposed for target-node selection, incorporating CPU load, round-trip network latency, and topological data distance. Unlike existing adaptive routing approaches that rely on heuristic or static weight assignment, the proposed method determines weights through a statistically grounded procedure based on Pearson correlation analysis between each factor and observed query response times within a sliding window, smoothed by exponential moving average (EMA). This design ensures invariance to workload type without administrator intervention.
Simulation on a five-node cluster demonstrates a 38.4% reduction in mean query latency, a 44.1% reduction in P95 latency, a 41.2% increase in throughput, and a 29.7% reduction in peak per-node CPU utilization compared to random routing. Load standard deviation across nodes decreases by a factor of 6.7.
For the first time, a weight-adaptation mechanism is proposed in which adaptation is a function of execution statistics rather than a rule set, providing theoretically grounded behavior under varying workloads. The method addresses a gap left by latency-aware, least-loaded, and geo-distributed routing, none of which jointly optimize resource, network, and topological factors adaptively.
Deployable as a middleware layer without modifying application logic. Uniform load distribution lowers peak server energy consumption, contributing to the carbon footprint reduction of data-center infrastructure.
Complexity is O(k) per routing decision; clusters exceeding 100 nodes require hierarchical adaptation. The independence assumption between factors is a known limitation addressed in future work.

References

Reinsel, D., Gantz, J., & Rydning, J. (2018, November; data refreshed May 2020). The digitization of the world: From edge to core (IDC White Paper No. US44413318). International Data Corporation (IDC); Seagate. https://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/our-story/trends/files/dataage-idc-report-final.pdf

Mytton, D. (2020). Assessing the suitability of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for calculation of emissions from public cloud computing workloads. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications, 9, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677-020-00185-8

Ongaro, D., & Ousterhout, J. (2014, May 20). In search of an understandable consensus algorithm (Extended version) [Technical report]. Stanford University. http://ramcloud.stanford.edu/raft.pdf

Lamport, L. (1998). The part-time parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 16(2), 133–169. https://doi.org/10.1145/279227.279229

DeCandia, G., Hastorun, D., Jampani, M., Kakulapati, G., Lakshman, A., Pilchin, A., Sivasubramanian, S., Vosshall, P., & Vogels, W. (2007). Dynamo: Amazon's highly available key-value store. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 41(6), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1145/1323293.1294281

Cardellini, V., Casalicchio, E., Colajanni, M., & Yu, P. S. (2002). The state of the art in locally distributed Web-server systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(2), 263–311. https://doi.org/10.1145/508352.508355

Kraska, T., Pang, G., Franklin, M. J., Madden, S., & Fekete, A. (2013). MDCC: Multi-data center consistency. Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys '13), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/2465351.2465363

Corbett, J. C., Dean, J., Epstein, M., Fikes, A., Frost, C., Furman, J. J., Ghemawat, S., Gubarev, A., Heiser, C., Hochschild, P., et al. (2013). Spanner: Google's globally distributed database. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 31(3), Article 8, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491245

Belous, R., Krylov, Y., & Anikin, V. (2021). Query optimization methods for distributed databases. Adaptive Systems of Automatic Control, 2(39). https://doi.org/10.20535/1560-8956.39.2021.247364

Belous, R. V., & Krylov, Y. V. (2024). Network traffic minimization in RAFT-like consensus algorithm. Municipal Economy of Cities, 4(185). https://doi.org/10.33042/2522-1809-2024-4-185-2-6

Özsu, M. T., & Valduriez, P. (2020). Principles of distributed database systems (4th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26253-2

Stonebraker, M., & Cattell, R. (2011). 10 rules for scalable performance in 'simple operation' datastores. Communications of the ACM, 54(6), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953122.1953144

Dayarathna, M., Wen, Y., & Fan, R. (2016). Data center energy consumption modeling: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 18(1), 732–794. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2015.2481183

Belous, R., & Krylov, Y. (2023). Optimization of data consistency process time in NoSQL. Technical Sciences, 3(321), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.31891/2307-5732-2023-321-3-37-42

Zheng, B., Li, X., Tian, Z., & Meng, L. (2022). Optimization method for distributed database query based on an adaptive double entropy genetic algorithm. IEEE Access, 10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3141589

Luo, W., Lai, D., Ren, B., Huang, X., & Chen, L. (2022). Dynamic load balancing algorithm for distributed database based on PI feedback. Proceedings of the 2022 3rd International Conference on Big Data & Artificial Intelligence & Software Engineering (ICBASE). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBASE57498.2022.9969759

Published

2026-06-18

How to Cite

Belous, R., & Mosiichuk, D. (2026). A method for optimizing query routing in distributed databases to reduce latency and load. Environmental Safety and Natural Resources, 58(2), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.32347/2411-4049.2026.2.274-286

Issue

Section

Information technology and mathematical modeling