Unasssuming View-Size Estimation Techniques in OLAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even if storage was infinite, a data warehouse could not materialize all possible views due to the running time and update requirements. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate quickly, accurately, and reliably the size of views. Many available techniques make particular statistical assumptions and their error can be quite large. Unassuming techniques exist, but typically assume we have independent hashing for which there is no known practical implementation. We adapt an unassuming estimator due to Gibbons and Tirthapura: its theoretical bounds do not make unpractical assumptions. We compare this technique experimentally with stochastic probabilistic counting, LogLog probabilistic counting, and multifractal statistical models. Our experiments show that we can reliably and accurately (within 10%, 19 times out 20) estimate view sizes over large data sets (1.5 GB) within minutes, using almost no memory. However, only Gibbons-Tirthapura provides universally tight estimates irrespective of the size of the view. For large views, probabilistic counting has a small edge in accuracy, whereas the competitive sampling-based method (multifractal) we tested is an order of magnitude faster but can sometimes provide poor estimates (relative error of 100%). In our tests, LogLog probabilistic counting is not competitive. Experimental validation on the US Census 1990 data set and on the Transaction Processing Performance (TPC H) data set is provided.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".