A Comparison of Five Probabilistic View-Size Estimation Techniques in OLAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A data warehouse cannot materialize all possible views, hence we must estimate quickly, accurately, and reliably the size of views to determine the best candidates for materialization. Many available techniques for view-size estimation make particular statistical assumptions and their error can be large. Comparatively, unassuming probabilistic techniques are slower, but they estimate accurately and reliability very large view sizes using little memory. We compare five unassuming hashing-based view-size estimation techniques including Stochastic Probabilistic Counting and LogLog Probabilistic Counting. Our experiments show that only Generalized Counting, Gibbons-Tirthapura, and Adaptive Counting provide universally tight estimates irrespective of the size of the view; of those, only Adaptive Counting remains constantly fast as we increase the memory budget.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".