Branch and-bound nearest neighbor searching over unbalanced trie-structured overlays
•
1 gostou•892 visualizações
Master presentation of Mike Argyriou in Technological University of Crete about Branch and-bound nearest neighbor searching over unbalanced trie-structured overlays.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Branch and-bound nearest neighbor searching over unbalanced trie-structured overlays
Semelhante a Branch and-bound nearest neighbor searching over unbalanced trie-structured overlays (20)
Último
Último (20)
Branch and-bound nearest neighbor searching over unbalanced trie-structured overlays
- 1. Branch-and-bound nearest neighbor searching over unbalanced trie-structured overlays Master’s Thesis Presentation Technical University of Crete 4.2.2013 Author: Michail Argyriou Supervisor: Ass’t Prof. Vasilis Samoladas
- 2. P2P Evolution 2002 2001 2001 2001 2001 DHTs 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 Centralized Semi-distributed Fully-distributed 2
- 3. Distributed Hash Table (DHT) 3
- 4. DHT Frameworks Evolution • Rectangular queries support • Peers only on leaves 2003: PGrid • High-dimensional queries support with space filling curves • Height-balanced search tree limitation 2006: VBI • No height-balanced search tree limitation • Abstract types of data and queries • Data: point, rectangular 2008: GRaSP • Queries: point, 3-sided, n-d rectangular 4
- 6. Given a distributed data set how can we find the k most similar data to a query? “k-Nearest Neighbor Search” 6
- 7. Applications Distributed GIS Databases Statistical Recommendation Classification Systems Cluster analysis Similarity Scores 7
- 8. Related Work 1. Naïve algorithm: Central peer collects data and performs k-NN searching 2. K-nn search algorithm over CAN 3. Distributed quad-based index each quadtree block is uniquely identified by its centroid mapped to Chord k-NN search algorithm 8
- 9. Contents GRaSP k-NN Evaluation Conclusions 9
- 10. GRaSP 10
- 11. GRaSP Building the trie ... Hierarchical space partition: 1 Peer p joins 2 Finds a bootstrapping peer q Space region s(q) splits into s(q0) and 3 s(q1) 11
- 12. GRaSP Space Partition Volume-balanced Before Data-balanced 13 Before
- 13. GRaSP Space Partition for a 3-sided query 14
- 14. GRaSP Space Partition for a 3-sided query 15
- 15. GRaSP Space Partition for a 3-sided query 16
- 16. GRaSP Data Insertion We insert a key k into all peers who own regions that contain k 17
- 17. GRaSP Routing Tables Each peer knows a peer in each complementary subtrie ... 0100 = 1 0100 = 00 0100 = 011 0100 = 0101 18
- 18. GRaSP Routing “In order to route a message from peer p to peer q, the message is forwarded from p to a neighbor peer included in a known subtrie closer to peer q. From r it is recursively forwarded to q.” 19
- 19. Contents GRaSP k-NN Evaluation Conclusions 20
- 20. Searching Algorithm Branch-and-bound algorithm Priority queue PQ of candidate peers holding answer better than the k-th answer found so far Fringe 1. Branch Step: expand PQ 2. Bound Step: prune PQ 21
- 21. Searching Algorithm Parallel Searching vs Iterative Searching Parallel Searching requires huge message state! Iterative Searching prunes larger regions of the data space! 22
- 22. Searching Algorithm 23
- 23. Searching Algorithm Branch-and-bound algorithm 1? d(q,s(1)) < d(q,a) 00? d(q,s(1)) > d(q,a) 011? d(q,s(1)) > d(q,a) 0101? d(q,s(1)) < d(q,a) 24
- 24. Latency Complexity Theorem Latency = |T|O(logn) Support Set T: 25
- 25. Latency Complexity Theorem Proof Peers visited: Peers in T: |T| peers Find peer in the complementary subtrie: O(logn) 26
- 26. Contents GRaSP k-NN Evaluation Conclusions 27
- 27. Performance Evaluation Taking into account number of dimensions Low Medium High 28
- 28. Performance Evaluation Metrics • Data Fairness Index • Latency • Max Throughput • Fringe Size (mean, max) 29
- 29. Low dimensions Low Medium High 30
- 30. Low dimensions Workloads Datasets • Greece, data-balanced partition, k=1/10/100 • Greece, volume-balanced partition, k=1 Querysets • Synthetic queries • For a network size of n peers we asked n/3 queries 31
- 31. Low dimensions Which space partition is the best? Volume- Data- balanced balanced 32
- 32. Low dimensions Data FI vs Space Partition Which space partition is the best? Greece ... 33 Data-balanced partition Volume-balanced partition
- 33. Low dimensions Latency vs Space Partition Which space partition is the best? Greece, k=1 ... 34 Data-balanced partition Volume-balanced partition
- 34. Low dimensions Fringe Size vs Space Partition Which space partition is the best? Greece, k=1 ... 35 Data-balanced partition Volume-balanced partition
- 35. Low dimensions Max Throughput vs Space Partition Which space partition is the best? Greece, k=1 ... 36 Data-balanced partition Volume-balanced partition
- 36. Low dimensions Which space partition is the best? Volume- Data- balanced balanced 37
- 37. Low dimensions k? 38
- 38. Low dimensions Fringe Size How is the size of the fringe vs affected? k Greece, data-balanced partition ... 39 k=1 k=10 k=100
- 39. Low dimensions Latency How is the latency affected? vs k Greece, data-balanced partition ... 40 k=1 k=10 k=100
- 40. Low dimensions Max Throughput How is the Max. Throughput affected? vs k Greece, data-balanced partition ... 41 k=1 k=10 k=100
- 41. Low dimensions … efficient routing! 42
- 42. Medium dimensions Low Medium High 43
- 43. Medium dimensions Workloads Datasets • Uniform, volume-balanced partition, k=1 • ColorMoments, data-balanced partition, k=1 Querysets • Synthetic queries • For a network size of n peers we asked n/3 queries 44
- 44. Medium dimensions How is the size of the fringe affected? 45
- 45. Medium dimensions How is the size of the fringe affected? 46 ColorMoments, data-balanced, k=1
- 46. Medium dimensions How is the size of the fringe affected? Uniform, volume-balanced, k=1 Mean Fringe Size Max. Fringe Size 47
- 47. Medium dimensions Data Fairness Index 48
- 48. Medium dimensions Data Fairness Index 49 ColorMoments, data-balanced, k=1
- 49. Medium dimensions Data Fairness Index 50 Uniform, volume-balanced, k=1
- 50. Medium dimensions Latency 51
- 51. Medium dimensions Latency 52 ColorMoments, data-balanced, k=1
- 52. Medium dimensions Latency 53 Uniform, volume-balanced, k=1
- 53. Medium dimensions Latency Latency is high but near to the optimum! 54
- 54. Medium dimensions Max. Throughput 55
- 55. Medium dimensions Max. Throughput 56 ColorMoments, data-balanced, k=1
- 56. Medium dimensions Max. Throughput 57 Uniform, volume-balanced, k=1
- 57. Medium dimensions … not efficient routing but near optimum! It's still good enough for practical applications! 58
- 58. High dimensions Low Medium High 59
- 59. High dimensions Curse of dimensionality “When the dimensionality increases, the volume of the space increases so fast that the available data becomes sparse.” 60
- 60. Contents GRaSP k-NN Evaluation Conclusions 61
- 61. Conclusions API Searching Data Trie (k-NN) Ins/Rem Query Space Data Types Types Partition Metric Space 62
- 62. Future Work Approximate k-NN searching for high dimensions Redundancy 63
- 63. THANK YOU QUESTIONS ? 64