Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

∂u∂u Multi-Tenanted Framework: Distributed Near Duplicate Detection for Big Data


Published on

Near duplicate detection algorithms have been proposed and implemented in order to detect and eliminate duplicate entries from massive datasets. Due to the differences in data representation (such as measurement units) across different data sources, potential duplicates may not be textually identical, even though they refer to the same real-world entity. As data warehouses typically contain data coming from several heterogeneous data sources, detecting near duplicates in a data warehouse requires a considerable memory and processing power.

Traditionally, near duplicate detection algorithms are sequential and operate on a single computer. While parallel and distributed frameworks have recently been exploited in scaling the existing algorithms to operate over larger datasets, they are often focused on distributing a few chosen algorithms using frameworks such as MapReduce. A common distribution strategy and framework to parallelize the execution of the existing similarity join algorithms is still lacking.

In-Memory Data Grids (IMDG) offer a distributed storage and execution, giving the illusion of a single large computer over multiple computing nodes in a cluster. This paper presents the research, design, and implementation of ∂u∂u, a distributed near duplicate detection framework, with preliminary evaluations measuring its performance and achieved speed up. ∂u∂u leverages the distributed shared memory and execution model provided by IMDG to execute existing near duplicate detection algorithms in a parallel and multi-tenanted environment. As a unified near duplicate detection framework for big data, ∂u∂u efficiently distributes the algorithms over utility computers in research labs and private clouds and grids.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

∂u∂u Multi-Tenanted Framework: Distributed Near Duplicate Detection for Big Data

  1. 1. ∂u∂u Multi-Tenanted Framework: Distributed Near Duplicate Detection for Big Data Pradeeban Kathiravelu, Helena Galhardas, Lu´ıs Veiga INESC-ID Lisboa Instituto Superior T´ecnico, Universidade de Lisboa Lisbon, Portugal 23rd International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 2015) 28-30 October 2015, Rhodes, Greece. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 1 / 23
  2. 2. Introduction Introduction Data cleaning is essential for enterprise information systems. Finding near duplicates is an important task in data cleaning. Near duplicate detection algorithms to find “almost” identical entries. Massive datasets require large memory and processing power. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 2 / 23
  3. 3. Introduction Motivation Most data cleaning algorithms are sequential. Recent use of MapReduce frameworks in near duplicate detection. In-Memory Data Grids (IMDG) offer a view of a large computer by unifying the resources across a distributed computer cluster. What if..? Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 3 / 23
  4. 4. Introduction ∂u∂u A distributed architecture for near duplicate detection. An efficient distribution strategy for the blocks over IMDGs. Adapting the existing algorithms. To execute on a computer cluster or a public/private cloud. Leverage MapReduce framework offered by the IMDG. In identifying the blocks. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 4 / 23
  5. 5. ∂u∂u Architecture Contributions Faster near duplicate detection over massive datasets. which may not have been possible to execute on the utility computers. High speedup and lower communication and coordination overhead. Multi-tenanted parallel processing architecture. Coordinated for multi-pass over multiple keys. More accurate and precise duplicate detection. Strategy and algorithms loosely coupled to the base algorithms. Potential to distribute more algorithms. Configuring based on user preferences. Adaptively involving the instances in near duplicate detection. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 5 / 23
  6. 6. ∂u∂u Architecture Distributed Near Duplicate Detection Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 6 / 23
  7. 7. ∂u∂u Architecture Distributed Near Duplicate Detection Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 7 / 23
  8. 8. ∂u∂u Architecture Distributed Near Duplicate Detection Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 8 / 23
  9. 9. ∂u∂u Architecture Deployment Architecture Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 9 / 23
  10. 10. ∂u∂u Architecture Efficient Data Distribution Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 10 / 23
  11. 11. ∂u∂u Architecture Partition of storage and execution across the instances Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 11 / 23
  12. 12. ∂u∂u Architecture Tenant-Aware Parallel Execution for Multiple Composite Blocking Keys Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 12 / 23
  13. 13. ∂u∂u Architecture Matrix Notation Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 13 / 23
  14. 14. ∂u∂u Architecture Software Architecture Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 14 / 23
  15. 15. ∂u∂u Prototype Prototype Implementation Java 1.8.0 as the programming language. Hazelcast 3.4 as the in-memory data grid. Data sources connected through their respective Java driver APIs. MongoDB 2.4.9. MySQL 5.5.41-0ubuntu0.14.04.1. PPJoin as the base near duplicate detection algorithm. Extended for distributed execution on Hazelcast. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 15 / 23
  16. 16. Evaluation Prototype Deployment Intel R CoreTM i7-4700MQ CPU @ 2.40GHz 8 processor. 8 GB memory. Ubuntu 14.04 LTS 64 bit operating system. Two Mongo databases connected as the data sources. Having the potential duplicate pairs. Hadoop HDFS to store the detected duplicate pairs. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 16 / 23
  17. 17. Evaluation Evaluation System Configurations Around 100 datasets of varying sizes above 1 GB. With varying number of nodes configured to execute in a cluster. Each cluster configured to have an executor instance. Fairness in evaluations. Number of iterations and the blocking keys maintained to be same across all the experiments. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 17 / 23
  18. 18. Evaluation Preliminary Assessments Performance and speed up With multi-pass in 4 different execution clusters. Compared to the sequential execution of PPJoin in a single computer. Efficiency in distributing the storage and execution. With multiple instances in the execution cluster. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 18 / 23
  19. 19. Evaluation Variations of Speedup with the Number of nodes Super-linear speedup. up to c ∗ n2 ; c - number of clusters; n - number of nodes. c = 4, as 4 clusters were used. n ⇒ 1 n2 search space in each blocks. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 19 / 23
  20. 20. Evaluation Variations of Memory Consumption with the Number of Nodes Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 20 / 23
  21. 21. Conclusion Related Work MapReduce frameworks for near duplicate detection. MapDupReducer [CW 2010], Dedoop [LK 2012], . . . Generalizing the existing algorithms to execute in a MapReduce framework. Do not consider all aspects of the near duplicate detection. Coupled to the MapReduce framework or the near duplicate detection algorithms. In-Memory Data Grids such as Hazelcast and Infinispan are not leveraged in existing data cleaning approaches. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 21 / 23
  22. 22. Conclusion Conclusion Conclusions In-memory data grids for a scalable near duplicate detection. Adoption of the existing algorithms for a distributed environment. Multi-tenanted environment for accurate near duplicate detection. with parallel usage of multiple blocking keys. Future Work Extending and leveraging ∂u∂u distributed execution approach for data warehouse construction and other data cleaning processes. Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 22 / 23
  23. 23. Conclusion References CX 2011 Xiao, C., Wang, W., Lin, X., Yu, J. X., & Wang, G. (2011). Efficient similarity joins for near-duplicate detection. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 36(3), 15. LK 2012 Kolb, L., Thor, A., & Rahm, E. (2012). Dedoop: efficient deduplication with Hadoop. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 5(12), 1878-1881. CW 2010 Wang, C., Wang, J., Lin, X., Wang, W., Wang, H., Li, H., ... & Li, R. (2010, June). MapDupReducer: detecting near duplicates over massive datasets. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data (pp. 1119-1122). ACM. RV 2010 Vernica, R., Carey, M. J., & Li, C. (2010, June). Efficient parallel set-similarity joins using MapReduce. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data (pp. 495-506). ACM. PK 2014 Kathiravelu, P. & L. Veiga (2014). An Adaptive Distributed Simulator for Cloud and MapReduce Algorithms and Architectures. In IEEE/ACM 7th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC 2014), London, UK. pp. 79 – 88. IEEE Computer Society. Thank you! Questions? Distributed Near Duplicate Detection ∂u∂u 23 / 23