Executing queries over schemaless RDF databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in Linked Data Management and the Semantic Web have led to a rapid increase in both the quantity as well as the variety of Web applications that rely on the SPARQL interface to query RDF data. Thus, RDF data management systems are increasingly exposed to workloads that are far more diverse and dynamic than what these systems were designed to handle. The problem is that existing systems rely on a workload-oblivious physical representation that has a fixed schema, which is not suitable for diverse and dynamic workloads. To address these issues, we propose a physical representation that is schemaless. The resulting flexibility enables an RDF dataset to be clustered based purely on the workload, which is key to achieving good performance through optimized I/O and cache utilization. Consequently, given a workload, we develop techniques to compute a good clustering of the database. We also design a new query evaluation model, namely, schemaless-evaluation that leverages this workload-aware clustering of the database whereby, with high probability, each tuple in the result set of a query is expected to be contained in at most one cluster. Our query evaluation model exploits this property to achieve better performance while ensuring fast generation of query plans without being hindered by the lack of a fixed physical schema.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".