{"title":"PoBery: Possibly-complete Big Data Queries with Probabilistic Data Placement and Scanning","authors":"Jie Song, Qiang He, Feifei Chen, Ye Yuan, Ge Yu","doi":"10.1145/3465375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In big data query processing, there is a trade-off between query accuracy and query efficiency, for example, sampling query approaches trade-off query completeness for efficiency. In this article, we argue that query performance can be significantly improved by slightly losing the possibility of query completeness, that is, the chance that a query is complete. To quantify the possibility, we define a new concept, Probability of query Completeness (hereinafter referred to as PC). For example, If a query is executed 100 times, PC = 0.95 guarantees that there are no more than 5 incomplete results among 100 results. Leveraging the probabilistic data placement and scanning, we trade off PC for query performance. In the article, we propose PoBery (POssibly-complete Big data quERY), a method that supports neither complete queries nor incomplete queries, but possibly-complete queries. The experimental results conducted on HiBench prove that PoBery can significantly accelerate queries while ensuring the PC. Specifically, it is guaranteed that the percentage of complete queries is larger than the given PC confidence. Through comparison with state-of-the-art key-value stores, we show that while Drill-based PoBery performs as fast as Drill on complete queries, it is 1.7 ×, 1.1 ×, and 1.5 × faster on average than Drill, Impala, and Hive, respectively, on possibly-complete queries.","PeriodicalId":93404,"journal":{"name":"ACM/IMS transactions on data science","volume":"2 1","pages":"1 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM/IMS transactions on data science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3465375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In big data query processing, there is a trade-off between query accuracy and query efficiency, for example, sampling query approaches trade-off query completeness for efficiency. In this article, we argue that query performance can be significantly improved by slightly losing the possibility of query completeness, that is, the chance that a query is complete. To quantify the possibility, we define a new concept, Probability of query Completeness (hereinafter referred to as PC). For example, If a query is executed 100 times, PC = 0.95 guarantees that there are no more than 5 incomplete results among 100 results. Leveraging the probabilistic data placement and scanning, we trade off PC for query performance. In the article, we propose PoBery (POssibly-complete Big data quERY), a method that supports neither complete queries nor incomplete queries, but possibly-complete queries. The experimental results conducted on HiBench prove that PoBery can significantly accelerate queries while ensuring the PC. Specifically, it is guaranteed that the percentage of complete queries is larger than the given PC confidence. Through comparison with state-of-the-art key-value stores, we show that while Drill-based PoBery performs as fast as Drill on complete queries, it is 1.7 ×, 1.1 ×, and 1.5 × faster on average than Drill, Impala, and Hive, respectively, on possibly-complete queries.
在大数据查询处理中,查询准确性和查询效率之间存在权衡,例如,抽样查询方法会权衡查询完整性和效率。在本文中,我们认为可以通过稍微失去查询完整性的可能性(即查询完整的机会)来显著提高查询性能。为了量化这种可能性,我们定义了一个新的概念,查询完整性概率(以下简称PC)。例如,如果一个查询被执行了100次,PC=0.95保证在100个结果中不超过5个不完整的结果。利用概率数据放置和扫描,我们用PC换取查询性能。在本文中,我们提出了PoBery(Possible complete Big data quERY),这是一种既不支持完整查询也不支持不完整查询,但可能支持完整查询的方法。在HiBench上进行的实验结果证明,PoBery可以在保证PC的同时显著加速查询。具体而言,它保证了完整查询的百分比大于给定的PC置信度。通过与最先进的键值存储的比较,我们发现,虽然基于Drill的PoBery在完整查询上的速度与Drill一样快,但在可能的完整查询上,它的平均速度分别比Drill、Impala和Hive快1.7倍、1.1倍和1.5倍。