TAPER: query-aware, partition-enhancement for large, heterogenous, graphs

March 15, 2016 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Distributed and parallel databases

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Hugo Firth, Paolo Missier arXiv ID 1603.04626 Category cs.DB: Databases Citations 12 Venue Distributed and parallel databases Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Graph partitioning has long been seen as a viable approach to address Graph DBMS scalability. A partitioning, however, may introduce extra query processing latency unless it is sensitive to a specific query workload, and optimised to minimise inter-partition traversals for that workload. Additionally, it should also be possible to incrementally adjust the partitioning in reaction to changes in the graph topology, the query workload, or both. Because of their complexity, current partitioning algorithms fall short of one or both of these requirements, as they are designed for offline use and as one-off operations. The TAPER system aims to address both requirements, whilst leveraging existing partitioning algorithms. TAPER takes any given initial partitioning as a starting point, and iteratively adjusts it by swapping chosen vertices across partitions, heuristically reducing the probability of inter-partition traversals for a given pattern matching queries workload. Iterations are inexpensive thanks to time and space optimisations in the underlying support data structures. We evaluate TAPER on two different large test graphs and over realistic query workloads. Our results indicate that, given a hash-based partitioning, TAPER reduces the number of inter-partition traversals by around 80%; given an unweighted METIS partitioning, by around 30%. These reductions are achieved within 8 iterations and with the additional advantage of being workload-aware and usable online.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Databases

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted