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

Sharing across Multiple MapReduce Jobs

2014· article· en· W2036787492 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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, <tt>MRShare</tt>. Our framework, <tt>MRShare</tt>, 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 <tt>MRShare</tt> 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. <tt>MRShare</tt> 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 <tt>MRAdaptiveFilter</tt>, an extension of <tt>MRShare</tt> 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 <tt>MRAdaptiveFilter</tt>, when executing CPU-intensive queries in <tt>MRShare</tt>.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.029
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