MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580524133 · doi:10.1109/icde.2015.7113335

Executing queries over schemaless RDF databases

2015· article· en· W1580524133 on OpenAlexaff
Güneş Aluç, M. TAMER ÖZSU, Khuzaima Daudjee, Olaf Hartig

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSPARQLRDFRDF SchemaRDF query languageDatabaseWorkloadQuery optimizationMaterialized viewInformation retrievalData miningCluster analysisSemantic WebViewWeb query classificationWeb search queryDatabase designSearch engineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207