MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036787492 · doi:10.1145/2560796

Sharing across Multiple MapReduce Jobs

2014· article· en· W2036787492 on OpenAlexaff
Tomasz Nykiel, Michalis Potamias, Chaitanya Mishra, George Kollios, Nick Koudas

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Database Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingMerge (version control)Key (lock)Batch processingDatabaseDistributed computingContext (archaeology)Parallel computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale data analysis lies in the core of modern enterprises and scientific research. With the emergence of cloud computing, the use of an analytical query processing infrastructure can be directly associated with monetary cost. MapReduce has been a popular framework in the context of cloud computing, designed to serve long-running queries (jobs) which can be processed in batch mode. Taking into account that different jobs often perform similar work, there are many opportunities for sharing. In principle, sharing similar work reduces the overall amount of work, which can lead to reducing monetary charges for utilizing the processing infrastructure. In this article we present a sharing framework tailored to MapReduce, namely, MRShare. Our framework, MRShare, transforms a batch of queries into a new batch that will be executed more efficiently, by merging jobs into groups and evaluating each group as a single query. Based on our cost model for MapReduce, we define an optimization problem and we provide a solution that derives the optimal grouping of queries. Given the query grouping, we merge jobs appropriately and submit them to MapReduce for processing. A key property of MRShare is that it is independent of the MapReduce implementation. Experiments with our prototype, built on top of Hadoop, demonstrate the overall effectiveness of our approach. MRShare is primarily designed for handling I/O-intensive queries. However, with the development of high-level languages operating on top of MapReduce, user queries executed in this model become more complex and CPU intensive. Commonly, executed queries can be modeled as evaluating pipelines of CPU-expensive filters over the input stream. Examples of such filters include, but are not limited to, index probes, or certain types of joins. In this article we adapt some of the standard techniques for filter ordering used in relational and stream databases, propose their extensions, and implement them through MRAdaptiveFilter, an extension of MRShare for expensive filter ordering tailored to MapReduce, which allows one to handle both single- and batch-query execution modes. We present an experimental evaluation that demonstrates additional benefits of MRAdaptiveFilter, when executing CPU-intensive queries in MRShare.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Database SystemsSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207