MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008025217 · doi:10.5339/qfarf.2012.aesnp3

ReStore: Reusing results of MapReduce jobs

2012· article· en· W2008025217 on OpenAlexaff
Ashraf Aboulnaga, Iman Elghandour

Bibliographic record

VenueQatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Volume 2012 Issue 1 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorkflowBig dataTerabytePetabyteDataflowProgramming paradigmQuery languageDatabaseDistributed computingOperating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Big Data' analysis has become a central activity in business and science. Companies such as Facebook, Yahoo, and Google now own petabyte-scale data warehouses that are accessed on a regular basis. Terabyte-scale data warehouses are now common in many smaller organizations. This big data analysis is mostly supported by the MapReduce programming and execution model and its implementations, most notably Hadoop which is now one of the major big data platforms. Users of MapReduce often have analysis tasks that are too complex to express as one MapReduce job. Instead, they often use high-level query languages such as Pig Latin, Hive, or Jaql to express their complex analysis tasks. The compilers of these query languages translate queries into workflows of MapReduce jobs. Each job in such a workflow produces an output that is stored in the distributed file system used by the MapReduce system (e.g., HDFS in the case of Hadoop). These intermediate results are used as input by subsequent jobs in the workflow. The current practice is to delete these intermediate outputs after finishing the execution of the workflow. In our work, we developed ReStore, a system that improves the performance of workflows of MapReduce jobs generated from high-level query languages by storing the intermediate results of executed workflows and reusing them for future workflows submitted to the system. ReStore can be built on top of dataflow language processor such as Pig, which translates queries into workflows of MapReduce jobs. Each of these MapReduce jobs has a physical query execution plan that contains one or more physical operators that are executed by this job. ReStore rewrites the MapReduce jobs in a submitted workflow at the level of the physical query execution plan in order to reuse job outputs previously stored in the system. ReStore also stores the outputs of executed jobs for future reuse, and creates more reuse opportunities by storing the outputs of parts of jobs (which we call sub-jobs). We have implemented ReStore as an extension to the Pig dataflow system on top of Hadoop, and we experimentally demonstrated significant speedups on queries from the PigMix benchmark.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Volume 2012 Issue 1Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207