Mike Dean of BBN Technologies opened the Scalable Knowledge Systems Workshop with an invited talk. He reminded us of the facts of nature as concern the cost of distributed computing and running out of space for the working set. Developers in the semantic web field deplorably often ignore these facts, or alternatively recognize them and admit that they are unbeatable, that one just can't join across partitions.
I gave a talk about the Virtuoso Cluster edition, wherein I repeated essentially the same ground facts as Mike and outlined how we (in spite of these) profit from distributed memory multiprocessing. To those not intimate with these questions, let me affirm that deriving benefit from threading in a symmetric multiprocessor box, let alone a cluster connected by a network, totally depends on having many relatively long running things going at a time and blocking as seldom as possible.
Further, Mike Dean talked about ASIO, the BBN suite of semantic web tools. His most challenging statement was about the storage engine, a network-database-inspired triple-store using memory-mapped files.
Will the CODASYL days come back, and will the linked list on disk be the way to store triples/quads? I would say that this will have, especially with a memory-mapped file, probably a better best-case as a B-tree but that this also will be less predictable with fragmentation. With Virtuoso, using a B-tree index, we see about 20-30% of CPU time spent on index lookup when running LUBM queries. With a disk-based memory-mapped linked-list storage, we would see some improvements in this while getting hit probably worse than now in the case of fragmentation. Plus compaction on the fly would not be nearly as easy and surely far less local, if there were pointers between pages. So it is my intuition that trees are a safer bet with varying workloads while linked lists can be faster in a query-dominated in-memory situation.
Chris Bizer presented the Berlin SPARQL Benchmark (BSBM), which has already been discussed here in some detail. He did acknowledge that the next round of the race must have a real steady-state rule. This just means that the benchmark must be run long enough for the system under test to reach a state where the cache is full and the performance remains indefinitely at the same level. Reaching steady state can take 20-30 minutes in some cases.
Regardless of steady state, BSBM has two generally valid conclusions:
Mike Dean asked whether BSBM was a case of a setup to have triple stores fail. Not necessarily, I would say; we should understand that one motivation of BSBM is testing mapping technologies. Therefore it must have a workload where mapping makes sense. Of course there are workloads where triples are unchallenged — take the Billion Triples Challenge data set for one.
Also, with BSBM, once should note that the query optimization time plays a fairly large role since most queries touch relatively little data. Also, even if the scale is large, the working set is not nearly the size of the database. This in fact penalizes mapping technologies against native SQL since the difference there is compiling the query, especially since parameters are not used. So, Chris, since we both like to map, let's make a benchmark that shows mapping closer to native SQL.
When we run Virtuoso relational against Virtuoso triple store with the TPC-H workload, we see that the relational case is significantly faster. These are long queries, thus query optimization time is negligible; we are here comparing memory-based access times. Why is this? The answer is that a single index lookup gives multiple column values with almost no penalty for the extra column. Also, since the number of total joins is lower, the overhead coming from moving from join to next join is likewise lower. This is just a meter of count of executed instructions.
A column store joins in principle just as much as a triple store. However, since the BI workload often consists of scanning over large tables, the joins tend to be local, the needed lookup can often use the previous location as a starting point. A triple store can do the same if queries have high locality. We do this in some SQL situations and can try this with triples also. The RDF workload is typically more random in its access pattern, though. The other factor is the length of control path. A column store has a simpler control flow if it knows that the column will have exactly one value per row. With RDF, this is not a given. Also, the column store's row is identified by a single number and not a multipart key. These two factors give the column store running with a fixed schema some edge over the more generic RDF quad store.
There was some discussion on how much closer a triple store could come to a relational one. Some gains are undoubtedly possible. We will see. For the ideal row store workload, the RDBMS will continue to have some edge. Large online systems typically have a large part of the workload that is simple and repetitive. There is nothing to prevent one having special indices for supporting such workload, even while retaining the possibility of arbitrary triples elsewhere. Some degree of application-specific data structure does make sense. We just need to show how this is done. In this way, we have a continuum and not an either/or choice of triples vs. tables.
Concerning the future direction of the workshop, there were a few directions suggested. One of the more interesting ones was Mike Dean's suggestion about dealing with a large volume of same-as assertions, specifically a volume where materializing all the entailed triples was no longer practical. Of course, there is the question of scale. This time, we were the only ones focusing on a parallel database with no restrictions on joining.
About this entry:
Author: Orri Erling
Published: 11/03/2008 13:16 GMT
11/03/2008 12:33 GMT
Comment Status: 0 Comments