MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131027594 · doi:10.14778/2733004.2733021

DGFIndex for smart grid

2014· article· en· W2131027594 on OpenAlexaff
Yue Liu, Songlin Hu, Tilmann Rabl, Wantao Liu, Hans‐Arno Jacobsen, Kaifeng Wu, Jian Chen, Jintao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSearch engine indexingGrid fileDatabaseGridBig dataData miningRange query (database)Distributed computingGrid computingInformation retrievalWeb search querySargableSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Smart Grid applications, as the number of deployed electric smart meters increases, massive amounts of valuable meter data is generated and collected every day. To enable reliable data collection and make business decisions fast, high throughput storage and high-performance analysis of massive meter data become crucial for grid companies. Considering the advantage of high efficiency, fault tolerance, and price-performance of Hadoop and Hive systems, they are frequently deployed as underlying platform for big data processing. However, in real business use cases, these data analysis applications typically involve multidimensional range queries (MDRQ) as well as batch reading and statistics on the meter data. While Hive is high-performance at complex data batch reading and analysis, it lacks efficient indexing techniques for MDRQ. In this paper, we propose DGFIndex, an index structure for Hive that efficiently supports MDRQ for massive meter data. DGFIndex divides the data space into cubes using the grid file technique. Unlike the existing indexes in Hive, which stores all combinations of multiple dimensions, DGFIndex only stores the information of cubes. This leads to smaller index size and faster query processing. Furthermore, with pre-computing user-defined aggregations of each cube, DGFIndex only needs to access the boundary region for aggregation query. Our comprehensive experiments show that DGFIndex can save significant disk space in comparison with the existing indexes in Hive and the query performance with DGFIndex is 2-50 times faster than existing indexes in Hive and HadoopDB for aggregation query, 2-5 times faster than both for non-aggregation query, 2-75 times faster than scanning the whole table in different query selectivity.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207