Orri Erling's Weblog

RDF Geography With Virtuoso

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:17:27 GMT

We have just added a geometry data type and corresponding R-tree index to Virtuoso. This follows the general scheme of SQL/MM, as is implemented by PostGIS and many others. We have all the engine-side stuff, including optimizer support for geometry cardinality sampling and good execution plans for combinations of spatial and other joins. We have however not yet implemented all the different geometry types and library function support for them, like shortest distance between two arbitrary shapes.

The geometry support is for both SQL and SPARQL. On the SQL side, it works with the ISO/IEC 13249 SQL/MM API; with RDF, a geometry can occur as the object of a quad. If the object is a typed-literal of the virtrdf:Geometry type, it gets indexed in a geometry index over all geometries in quads; no special declarations are needed. After this, SQL MM predicates and functions can be used with SPARQL, like this:

  PREFIX  geo:  <http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#>  
  SELECT  ?class
          COUNT (*) 
   WHERE  { ?m  geo:geometry  ?geo    . 
            ?m  a             ?class  . 
                FILTER ( <bif:st_intersects> 
                          ( ?geo, 
                            <bif:st_point> (0, 52), 
                            100
                          )
                       )
          } 
GROUP BY  ?class 
ORDER BY  DESC 2

This returns the counts of objects of each class occurring within 100 km of (0, 52), a point near London.

For any data set with WGS 84 geo:long and geo:lat values, a simple SQL function makes a point geometry for each such coordinate pair and adds it as the geo:geometry property of the subject with the long/lat. This then enables fast spatial access to arbitrary location data in RDF.

Right now, we hardly see any geometries other than points in RDF data, even though there are some efforts for vocabularies for more complex entities. As these get adopted we will support them.

For scalability, we tried the implementation with OpenStreetMap's 350 million or so points. The geometry implementation partitions well over a cluster, similarly to a full text index, i.e., every server has its slice of the geometries, partitioned by the geometry object's key, thus not by range of coordinates or such. Like this, the items are evenly spread even though the coordinate distribution is highly uneven.

We can do spatial joins like â

   SELECT  ?s 
           ( <sql:num_or_null> (?p) )  
           COUNT (*) 
    WHERE  { ?s   <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/populationTotal>  ?p    . 
             FILTER 
               ( <sql:num_or_null> (?p) > 1000000 )                      . 
             ?s   geo:geometry                                   ?geo  .
             FILTER 
               ( <bif:st_intersects> ( ?pt, ?geo, 5 ) )                  . 
             ?xx  geo:geometry                                   ?pt 
           } 
 GROUP BY  ?s 
           ( <sql:num_or_null> (?p) )
 ORDER BY  DESC 3 
    LIMIT  20

This takes the DBpedia subjects that have a population over 1 million and a geometry. We then count all the geometries within 5 km of the point location of the first geometry. With DBpedia (about 5 million points), GeoNames (7 million points), and OpenStreetMap (350 million points), we get the result:

http://dbpedia.org/resource/Munich                        1356594    117280
http://dbpedia.org/resource/London                        7355400     81486
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Davao_City                    1363337     58640
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Belo_Horizonte                2412937     58640
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Chengde                       3610000     58640
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Hamburg                       1769117     51664
http://dbpedia.org/resource/San_Diego%2C_California       1266731     47685
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bursa                         1562828     47685
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Port-au-Prince                1082800     47685
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Oakland_County%2C_Michigan    1194156     45636
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Sana%27a                      1747627     40923
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Milan                         1303437     40923
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Campinas                      1059420     40923
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Hohhot                        2580000     40923
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Brussels                      1031215     40923
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bogra_District                2988567     40923
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Cort%C3%A9s_Department        1202510     40923
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Berlin                        3416300     35668
http://dbpedia.org/resource/New_York_City                 8274527     30810
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Los_Angeles%2C_California     3849378     25614

20 Rows. -- 1733 msec.

Cluster 8 nodes, 1 s. 358 m/s 1596 KB/s  664% cpu 2%  read 16% clw threads 1r 0w 0i buffers 1124351 0 d 0 w 0 pfs

This takes 1.7 seconds on a Virtuoso Cluster configured with 8 processes on a single dual-Xeon 5520 box, running at about 664% CPU with warm cache. Fair enough for a first crack, this can obviously be optimized further. Still, the geo part of the processing is already as good as instantaneous.

We will shortly have the geography features installed on DBpedia and the other data sets we host. As these come online we will show more demo queries.

For more about SQL/MM, you can look to a couple of PDFs:

SQL/MM Spatial: The Standard to Manage Spatial Data in Relational Database Systems by Knut Stolze
SQL Multimedia and Application Packages (SQL/MM) by Jim Melton and Andrew Eisenberg

European Commission and the Data Overflow

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:29:51 GMT

The European Commission recently circulated a questionnaire to selected experts on what could be done for the future of big data.

Since the questionnaire is public, I am publishing my answers below.

Data and data types
1. What volumes of data are we dealing with today? What is the growth rate? Where can we expect to be in 2015?
  
  Private data warehouses of corporations have more than doubled yearly for the past years; hundreds of TB is not exceptional. This will continue. The real shift is in structured data being published in increasing quantities with a minimum level of integrate-ability through use of RDF and linked data principles. There are rewards for use of standard vocabularies and identifiers through search engines recognizing such data. There is convergence around DBpedia identifiers for real-world entities, e.g., most things that would be in the news.
  
  This also means that internal data processes and silos may be enriched with this content. There is consequent pressure for accommodating more diversity of data, with more flexible schema.
  
  Ultimately, all content presently stored in RDBs and presented in public accessible dynamic web pages will end up on the web of linked data. Examples are product catalogs, price lists, event schedules and the like.
  
  The volume of the well known linked data sets is around 10 billion statements. With the above mentioned trends, growth by two or three orders of magnitude by 2015 seems reasonable, This is so especially if explicit semantics are extracted from the document web and if there is some further progress in the precision/recall of such extraction.
  
  Relevant sections of this mass of data are a potential addition to any present or future analytics application.
  
  Since arbitrary analytics over the database which is the web cannot be economically provided by a centralized search engine, a cloud model may be used for on-demand selection of relevant data and mixing it with private data. This will drive database innovation for the next years even more than the continued classical warehouse growth.
  
  Science data is another driver of the data overflow. For example, faster gene sequencing, more accurate measurements in high energy physics, better imaging, and remote sensing will produce large volumes of data. This data has highly regular structure but labeling this data with source and lineage calls for a flexible, schema-last, self-describing model, such as RDF and linked data. Data and metadata should travel together but may have different data models.
  
  By and large, the metadata of science data will be another stream to the web of linked data, at least to the degree it is publicly accessible. Restricted circles can and likely will implement similar ideas.
2. What types of data can we deal with intelligently due to their inherent structure (geospatial, temporal, social or knowledge graphs, 3D, sensor streams...)?
  
  All the above types should be supported inside one DBMS so as to allow efficient querying combining conditions on all these types of data, e.g., photos of sunsets taken last summer in Ibiza, with over 20 megapixels, by people I know.
  
  Note that the test for being a sunset is an operation on the image blob that should be taken to the data; the images cannot be economically transferred.
  
  Interleaving of all database functions and types becomes increasingly important.
Industries, communities
1. Who is producing these data and why? Could they do it better? How?
  
  Right now, projects such as Bio2RDF, Neurocommons, and DBPedia produce this data. The processes are in place and are reasonable. Incremental improvement is to be expected. These processes, along with the linked data meme generally taking off, drive demand for better NLP (Natural Language Processing), e.g., entity and relationship extraction, especially extraction that can produce instance data in given ontologies (e.g., events) using common identifiers (e.g., DBPedia URIs).
  
  Mapping of RDBs to RDF is possible, and a W3C working group is developing standards for this. The required baseline level has been reached; the rest is a matter of automating deployment. Within the enterprise, there are advantages to be gained for information integration; e.g., all entities in the CRM space can be integrated with all email and support tickets through giving everything a URI. Some of this information may even be published on an extranet for self-service and web-service interfaces. This has been done at small scales and the rest is a matter of spreading adoption and lowering the entry barrier. Incremental progress will take place, eventually resulting in qualitatively better integration along the value chain when adoption is sufficiently widespread.
2. Who is consuming these data and why? Could they do it better? How?
  
  Consumers are various. The greatest need is for tools that summarize complex data and allow getting a bird's eye view of what data is in the first instance available. Consuming the data is hindered by the user not even necessarily knowing what data there is. This is somewhat new, as traditionally the business analyst did know the schema of the warehouse and was proficient with SQL report generators and statistics packages.
  
  Where Web 2.0 made the citizen journalist, the web of linked data will make the citizen analyst. For this to happen, with benefits for individuals, enterprises, and governments alike, more work in user interfaces, knowledge discovery, and query composition will be useful. We may envision a "meshup economy" where data is plentiful, but the unit of value and exchange is the smart report that crystallizes actionable value from this ocean.
3. What industrial sectors in Europe could become more competitive if they became much better at managing data?
  
  Any sector could benefit. Early adopters are seen in the biomedical field and to an extent in media.
4. Is the regulation landscape imposing constraints (privacy, compliance ...) that don't have today good tool support?
  
  The regulation landscape drives database demand through data retention requirements and the like.
  
  With data integration, especially with privacy-sensitive data (as in medicine), there are issues of whether one dares put otherwise-shareable information online. Regulation is needed to protect individuals, but integration should still be possible for science.
  
  For this, we see a need for progress in applying policy-based approaches (e.g., row level security) to relatively schema-last data such as RDF. This is possible but needs some more work. Also, creating on-the-fly-anonymizing views on data might help.
  
  More research is needed for reconciling the need for security with the advantages of broad-based ad hoc integration. Ideally, data should be intelligent, aware of its origins and classification and cautious of whom it interacts with, all of this supported under the covers so that the user could ask anything but the data might refuse to answer or might restrict answers according to the user's profile. This is a tall order and implementing something of the sort is an open question.
5. What are the main practical problem identified for individuals and organizations? Please give examples and tell us about the main obstacles and barriers.
  
  We have come across the following:
  - Knowing that the data exists in the first place.
  - If the data is found, figuring out the provenance, units and precision of measurement, identifiers, and the like.
  - Compatible subject matter but incompatible representation: For example, one has numbers on a map with different maps for different points in time; another has time series of instrument data with geo-location for the instrument. It is only to be expected that the time interval between measurements is not the same. So there is need for a lot of one-off programming to align data.
  Other problems have to do with sheer volume, i.e., transfer of data even in a local area network is too slow, let alone over a wide area network. Computation needs to go to the data, and databases need to support this.
Services, software stacks, protocols, standards, benchmarks
1. What combinations of components are needed to deal with these problems?
  
  Recent times have seen a proliferation of special purpose databases. Since the data needs of the future are about combining data with maximum agility and minimum performance hit, there is need to gather the currently-separate functionality into an integrated system with sufficient flexibility. We see some of this in integration of map-reduce and scale-out databases. The former antagonists have become partners. Vertica, Greenplum, and OpenLink Virtuoso are example of DBMS featuring work in this direction.
  
  Interoperability and at least de facto standards in ways of doing this will emerge.
2. What data exchange and processing mechanisms will be needed to work across platforms and programming languages?
  
  HTTP, XML, and RDF are in fact very verbose, yet these are the formats and models that have uptake. Thus, these will continue to be used even though one might think binary formats to be more efficient.
  
  There are of course science data set standards that are more compressed and these will continue, hopefully adding a practice of rich metadata in RDF.
  
  For internals of systems, MPI and TCP/IP with proprietary optimized wire formats will continue. Inter-system communication will likely continue to be HTTP, XML, and RDF as appropriate.
3. What data environments are today so wastefully messy that they would benefit from the development of standards?
  
  RDF and OWL are not messy but they could use some more performance; we are working on this. SPARQL is finally acquiring the capabilities of a serious query language, so things are slowly coming together.
  
  Community process for developing application domain specific vocabularies works quite well, even though one could argue it is ad hoc and not up to what a modeling purist might wish.
  
  Top-down imposition of standards has a mixed history, with long and expensive development and sometimes no or little uptake, consider some WS* standards for example.
4. What kind of performance is expected or required of these systems? Who will measure it reliably? How?
  
  Relational databases have a history of substantial investment in optimization and some of them are very good for what they do, e.g., the newer generation of analytics databases.
  
  The very large schema-last, no-SQL, sometimes eventually consistent key-value stores have a somewhat shorter history but do fill a real need.
  
  These trends will merge: Extreme scale, schema-last, complex queries, even more complex inference, custom code for in-database machine learning and other bulk processing.
  
  We find RDF augmented with some binary types at this crossroads. This point of the design space will have to provide performance roughly on the level of today's best relational solution for workloads that fit the relational model. The added cost of schema-last and inference must come down. We are working on this. Research work such as carried out with MonetDB gives clues as to how these aims can be reached.
  
  The separation of query language and inference is artificial. After the concepts are mature, these functions will merge and execute close to the data; there are clear evolutionary pressures in this direction.
  
  Benchmarks are key. Some gain can be had even from repurposing standard relational benchmarks like TPC-H. But the TPC-H rules do not allow official reporting of such.
  
  Development of benchmarks for RDF, complex queries, and inference is needed. A bold challenge to the community, it should be rooted in real-life integration needs and involve high heterogeneity. A key-value store benchmark might also be conceived. A transaction benchmark like TPC-C might be the basis, maybe augmented with massive user-generated content like reviews and blogs.
  
  If benchmarks exist and are not too easy nor inaccessibly difficult nor too expensive to run â think of the high end TPC-C results â then TPC-style rules and processes would be quite adequate. The threshold to publish should be lowered: Everybody runs the TPC workloads internally but few publish.
  
  Some EC initiative for benchmarking could make sense, similar to the TREC initiative of the US government. Industry should be consulted for the specific content; possibly the answers to the present questionnaire can provide an approximate direction.
  
  Benchmarks should be run by software vendors on their own systems, tuned by themselves. But there should be a process of disclosure and auditing; the TPC rules give an example. Compliance should not be too expensive or time consuming. Some community development for automating these things would be a worthwhile target for EC funding.
Usability and training
1. How difficult will it be for a developer of average competence to deploy components whose core is based on rather deep computer science? Do we all need to understand Monads and Continuations? What can be done to make it ever easier?
  
  In the database world, huge advances in technology have taken place behind a relatively simple and stable interface: SQL. For the linked data web, the same will take place behind SPARQL.
  
  Beyond these, for example, programming with MPI with good utilization of a cluster platform for an arbitrary algorithm, is quite difficult. The casual amateur is hereby warned.
  
  There is no single solution. For automatic parallelization, since explicit, programmatic parallelization of things with MPI for example is very unscalable in terms of required skill, we should favor declarative and/or functional approaches.
  
  Developing a debugger and explanation engine for rule-based and description-logics-based inference would be an idea.
  
  For procedural workloads, things like Erlang may be good in cases and are not overly difficult in principle, especially if there are good debugging facilities.
  
  For shipping functions in a cluster or cloud, the BOOM (Berkeley Orders Of Magnitude) approach or logic programming with explicit specification of compute location seem promising, surely more flexible than map-reduce. The question is whether a PHP developer can be made to do logic programming.
  
  This bridge will be crossed only with actual need and even then reluctantly. We may look at the Web 2.0 practice of sharding MySQL, inconvenient as this may be, for an example. There is inertia and thus re-architecting is a constant process that is generally in reaction to facts, post hoc, often a point solution. One could argue that planning ahead would be smarter but by and large the world does not work so.
  
  One part of the answer is an infinitely-scalable SQL database that expands and shrinks in the clouds, with the usual semantics, maybe optional eventual consistency and built-in map reduce. If such a thing is inexpensive enough and syntax-level-compatible with present installed base, many developers do not have to learn very much more.
  
  This is maybe good for the bread-and-butter IT, but European competitiveness should not rest on this. Therefore we wish to go for bold new application types for which the client-server database application is not the model. Data-centric languages like BOOM, if they can be made very efficient and have good debugging support, are attractive there. These do require more intellectual investment but that is not a problem since the less-inquisitive part of the developer community is served by the first part of the answer.
2. How is a developer of average skills going to learn about these new advanced tools? How can we plan for excellent documentation and training, community mentoring, exchange of good practices, etc... across all EU countries?
  
  For the most part, developers do not learn things for the sake of learning. When they have learned something and it is adequate, they stay with it for the most part and are even reluctant to engage in cross-camps interaction. The research world is often similarly insular. A new inflection in the application landscape is needed to drive learning. This inflection is provided by the ubiquity of mobile devices, sensor data, explicit semantics, NLP concept extraction, web of linked data, and such factors.
  
  RDFa is a good example of a new technique piggybacking on something everybody uses, namely HTML. These new things should, within possibility, be deployed in the usual technology stack, LAMP or Java. Of course these do not have to be LAMP or Java or HTML or HTTP themselves but they must manifest through these.
  
  A lot of the semantic web potential can be realized within the client-server database application model, thus no fundamental re-architecting, just some new data types and queries.
  
  For data- or processing-intensive tasks, an on-demand hookup to cloud-based servers with Erlang and/or BOOM for programming model would be easy enough to learn and utilize.
  
  The question is one of providing challenges. Addressing actual challenges with these techniques will lead to maturity, documentation, examples, and training. With virtual, Europe-wide distributed teams a reality in many places, Europe-wide dissemination is no longer insurmountable.
  
  As the data overflow proceeds, its victims will multiply and create demand for solutions. The EC could here encourage research project use cases gaining an extended life past the end of research projects, possibly being maintained and multiplied and spun off.
  
  If such things could be mutated into self-sustaining service businesses with pay-per-use revenue, say through a cloud SaaS business model, still primarily leveraging an open source technology stack, we could have self-propagating and self-supporting models for exploiting advanced IT. This would create interest, and interest would drive training and dissemination.
  
  The problem is creating the pull.
Challenges
1. What should be, in this domain, the equivalent of the Netflix challenge, Ansari X Prize, Google Lunar X Prize, etc. ... ?
  
  The EC itself no doubt suffers from data overflow in one function or another. Unless security/secrecy prohibits, simply publishing a large data set and a description of what operations should be done on it would be a start. The more real the data, the better â reality is consistently more complex and surprising than imagination. Since many interesting problems touch on fraud detection and law enforcement, there may be some security obstacles for using these application domains as subject matters of open challenges.
  
  Once there is a good benchmark, as discussed above, there can be some prize money allocated for the winners, specially if the race is tight.
  
  The Semantic Web Challenge and the Billion Triples Challenge exist and are useful as such, but do not seem to have any huge impact.
  
  The incentives should be sufficient and part of the expenses arising from running for such challenges could be funded. Otherwise investing in existing business development will be more interesting to industry. Some industry participation seems necessary; we would wish academia and industry to work closer. Also, having industry supply the baseline guarantees that academia actually does further the state of the art. This is not always certain.
  
  If challenges are based on actual problems, whether of the EC, its member governments, or private entities, and winning the challenge may lead to a contract for supplying an actual solution, these will naturally become more interesting for consortia involving integrators, specialist software vendors, and academia. Such a model would build actual capacity to deploy leading edge technologies in production, which is sorely needed.
2. What should one do to set up such a challenge, administer, and monitor it?
  
  The EC should probably circulate a call for actual problem scenarios involving big data. If the matter of the overflow is as dire as represented, cases should be easy to find. A few should be selected and then anonymized if needed.
  
  The party with the use case would benefit by having hopefully the best work on it. The contestants would benefit from having real world needs guide R&D. The EC would not have to do very much, except possibly use some money for funding the best proposals. The winner would possibly get a large account and related sales and service income. The contestants would have to be teams possibly involving many organizations; for example, development and first-line services and support could come from different companies along a systems integrator model such as is widely used in the US.
  
  There may be a good benchmark at the time, possibly resulting from FP7 itself. In such a case, the EC could offer a prize for winners. Details would have to be worked out case by case. Such a challenge could be repeated a few times, as benchmark-driven progress in databases or TREC for example have taken some years to reach a point of slowdown in progress.
  
  Administrating such an activity should not be prohibitive, as most of the expertise can be found with the stakeholders.

VLDB 2009 Web Scale Data Management Panel (5 of 5)

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:24:17 GMT

"The universe of cycles is not exactly one of literal cycles, but rather one of spirals," mused Joe Hellerstein of UC Berkeley.

"Come on, let's all drop some ACID," interjected another.

"It is not that we end up repeating the exact same things, rather even if some patterns seem to repeat, they do so at a higher level, enhanced by the experience gained," continued Joe.

Thus did the Web Scale Data Management panel conclude.

Whether successive generations are made wiser by the ones that have gone before may be argued either way.

The cycle in question was that of developers discovering ACID in the 1960s, i.e. Atomicity, Consistency, Integrity, Durability. Thus did the DBMS come into being. Then DBMSs kept becoming more complex until, as there will be a counter-force to each force, came the meme of key value stores and BASE, no multiple-row transactions, eventual consistency, no query language but scaling to thousands of computers. So now, the DBMS community asks itself what went wrong.

In the words of one panelist, another demonstrated a "shocking familiarity with the subject matter of substance abuse" when he called for the DBMS community to get on a 12 step program and to look where addiction to certain ideas, among which ACID, had brought its life. Look at yourself: The influential papers in what ought to be your space by rights are coming from the OS community: Google Bigtable, Amazon Dynamo, want more? When you ought to drive, you give excuses and play catch up! Stop denial, drop SQL, drop ACID!

The web developers have revolted against the time-honored principles of the DBMS. This is true. Sharded MySQL is not the ticket â or is it? Must they rediscover the virtues of ACID, just like the previous generation did?

Nothing under the sun is new. As in music and fashion, trends keep cycling also in science and engineering.

But seriously, does the full-featured DBMS scale to web scale? Microsoft says the Azure version of SQL server does. Yahoo says they want no SQL but Hadoop and PNUTS.

Twitter, Facebook, and other web names got their own discussion. Why do they not go to serious DBMS vendors for their data but make their own, like Facebook with Hive?

Who can divine the mind of the web developer? What makes them go to memcached, manually sharded MySQL, and MapReduce, walking away from the 40 years of technology invested in declarative query and ACID? What is this highly visible but hard to grasp entity? My guess is that they want something they can understand, at least at the beginning. A DBMS, especially on a cluster, is complicated, and it is not so easy to say how it works and how its performance is determined. The big brands, if deployed on a thousand PCs, would also be prohibitively expensive. But if all you do with the DBMS is single row selects and updates, it is no longer so scary, but you end up doing all the distributed things in a middle layer, and abandoning expressive queries, transactions, and database-supported transparency of location. But at least now you know how it works and what it is good/not good for.

This would be the case for those who make a conscious choice. But by and large the choice is not deliberate; it is something one drifts into: The application gains popularity; the single LAMP can no longer keep all in memory; you need a second MySQL in the LAMP and you decide that users AâM go left and NâZ right (horizontal partitioning). This siren of sharding beckons you and all is good until you hit the reef of re-architecting. Memcached and duct-tape help, like aspirin helps with hangover, but the root cause of the headache lies unaddressed.

The conclusion was that there ought to be something incrementally scalable from the get-go. Low cost of entry and built-in scale-out. No, the web developers do not hate SQL; they just have gotten the idea that it does not scale. But they would really wish it to. So, DBMS people, show there is life in you yet.

Joe Hellerstein was the philosopher and paradigmatician of the panel. His team had developed a protocol-compatible Hadoop in a few months using a declarative logic programming style approach. His claim was that developers made the market. Thus, for writing applications against web scale data, there would have to be data centric languages. Why not? These are discussed in Berkeley Orders Of Magnitude (BOOM).

I come from Lisp myself, way back. I have since abandoned any desire to tell anybody what they ought to program in. This is a bit like religion: Attempting to impose or legislate or ram it on somebody just results in anything from lip service to rejection to war. The appeal exerted by the diverse language/paradigm -isms on their followers seems to be based on hitting a simplification of reality that coincides with a problem in the air. MapReduce is an example of this. PHP is another. A quick fix for a present need: Scripting web servers (PHP) or processing tons of files (MapReduce). The full database is not as quick a fix, even though it has many desirable features. It is also not as easy to tell what happens inside one, so MapReduce may give a greater feeling of control.

Totally self-managing, dynamically-scalable RDF would be a fix for not having to design or administer databases: Since it would be indexed on everything, complex queries would be possible; no full database scans would stop everything. For the mid-size segment of web sites this might be a fit. For the extreme ends of the spectrum, the choice is likely something custom built and much less expressive.

The BOOM rule language for data-centric programming would be something very easy for us to implement, in fact we will get something of the sort essentially for free when we do the rule support already planned.

The question is, can one induce web developers to do logic? The history is one of procedures, both in LAMP and MapReduce. On the other hand, the query languages that were ever universally adopted were declarative, i.e., keyword search and SQL. There certainly is a quest for an application model for the cloud space beyond just migrating apps. We'll see. More on this another time.

VLDB 2009 TPC Workshop (3 of 5)

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:51:09 GMT

Michael Stonebraker gave the keynote at the TPC workshop. His message was that the TPC, at the venerable age of 21, was already a decade late in reinventing itself. From the height of relevance at the time of the debit/credit benchmark twenty years back, it was slipping into the sunset of irrelevance unless it paid attention.

Now we are great fans of the TPC and while we have not published results by the TPC book, we have extensively used TPC material for guiding optimization, as has pretty much everybody else.

It is true that the rules encourage unrealistic configurations. The emphasis on random access from disk that is built into the rules leads to disk configurations that are very improbable in practice, such as 1PB of disks for 3TB of data, just so there are enough disk arms in parallel. Stonebraker also pointed out that replication and failover were ubiquitous in real life and that roll forward from logs was unrealistic as a recovery model since it took so long. Benchmarks should therefore include replication.

Further, Stonebraker challenged the TPC to go for the new frontier, which he described as the huge data sets in science and on big web sites. Scientists, the ones who would save our planet from the diverse ills confronting it, do not like relational databases. They avoid them when can. They want arrays for physics, and graphs for biology and chemistry. MapReduce is eating database's lunch; what will you do about this?

I later suggested incorporating an RDF metadata benchmark into the TPC suite. We'll see about this; we'll first have to come up with a suitable one. There is a great deal of pressure for making good RDF benchmarks but this is not yet in the center of the mainstream that TPC tends to cover.

TPC's own talk was about the life cycle of benchmarks. A benchmark begins a bit ahead of the mainstream, with a problem that is difficult but not so difficult as to be uncommon. When the solution to this problem becomes commonplace, the benchmark's relevance gradually drops.

There was a talk on robustness of query plans which was well to the point. Indeed, there are performance cliffs at certain points; for example, when passing from memory-only to disk-pageable data structures, or when switching from indexed access to table scans, or from loop to hash joins. Quite so. The analysis I really would have liked to see would have been one of what happens when passing from single server to a cluster, and from local joins to cross-partition ones. Also contrasting of cache fusion and partitioning. We have our own data and experience but we find we don't have time to measure all the other systems.

Anyway it is good to raise the question of smooth and predictable performance.

Some Interesting VLDB 2009 Papers (2 of 5)

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:46:14 GMT

Intel on Hash Join

Intel and Oracle had measured hash and sort merge joins on Intel Core i7. The result was that hash join with both tables partitioned to match CPU cache was still the best but that sort/merge would catch up with more SIMD instructions in the future.

We should probably experiment with this but the most important partitioning of hash joins is still between cluster nodes. Within the process, we will see. The tradeoff of doing all in cache-sized partitions is larger intermediate results which in turn will impact the working set of disk pages in RAM. For one-off queries this is OK; for online use this has an effect.

1000 TABLE Queries

SAP presented a paper about federating relational databases. Queries would be expressed against VIEWs defined over remote TABLEs, UNIONed together and so forth. Traditional methods of optimization would run out of memory; a single 1000 TABLE plan is already a big thing. Enumerating multiple variations of such is not possible in practice. So the solution was to plan in two stages â first arrange the subqueries and derived TABLEs, and then do the JOIN orders locally. Further, local JOIN orders could even be adjusted at run time based on the actual data. Nice.

Oracle Subqueries and New Implementation of LOBs

Oracle presented some new SQL optimizations, combining and inlining subqueries and derived TABLEs. We do fairly similar things and might extend the repertoire of tricks in the direction outlined by Oracle as and when the need presents itself. This further confirms that SQL and other query optimization is really an incremental collection of specially recognized patterns. We still have not found any other way of doing it.

Another interesting piece by Oracle was about their re-implementation of large object support, where they compared LOB loading to file system and raw device speeds.

Amadeus CRS booking system, steady query time for arbitrary single table queries

There was a paper about a memory-resident database that could give steady time for any kind of single-table scan query. The innovation was to not use indices, but to have one partition of the table per processor core, all in memory. Then each core would have exactly two cursors â one reading, the other writing. The write cursor should keep ahead of the read cursor. Like this, there would be no read/write contention on pages, no locking, no multiple threads splitting a tree at different points, none of the complexity of a multithreaded database engine. Then, when the cursor would hit a row, it would look at the set of queries or updates and add the result to the output if there was a result. The data indexes the queries, not the other way around. We have done something similar for detecting changes in a full text corpus but never thought of doing queries this way.

Well, we are all about JOINs so this is not for us, but it deserves a mention for being original and clever. And indeed, anything one can ask about a table will likely be served with great predictability.

Greenplum

Google's chief economist said that the winning career choice would be to pick a scarce skill that made value from something that was plentiful. For the 2010s this career is that of the statistician/data analyst. We've said it before â the next web is analytics for all. The Greenplum talk was divided between the Fox use case, with 200TB of data about ads, web site traffic, and other things, growing 5TB a day. The message was that cubes and drill down are passÃ©, that it is about complex statistical methods that have to run in the database, that the new kind of geek is the data geek, whose vocation it is to consume and spit out data, discover things in it, and so forth.

The technical part was about Greenplum, a SQL database running on a cluster with a PostgreSQL back-end. The interesting points were embedding MapReduce into SQL, and using relational tables for arrays and complex data types â pretty much what we also do. Greenplum emphasized scale-out and found column orientation more like a nice-to-have.

MonetDB, optimizing database for CPU cache

The MonetDB people from CWI in Amsterdam gave a 10 year best paper award talk about optimizing database for CPU cache. The key point was that if data is stored as columns, it ought also to be transferred as columns inside the execution engine. Materialize big chunks of state to cut down on interpretation overhead and use cache to best effect. They vector for CPU cache; we vector for scale-out, since the only way to ship operations is to ship many at a time. So we might as well vector also in single servers. This could be worth an experiment. Also we regularly visit the topic of column storage. But we are not yet convinced that it would be better than row-style covering indices for RDF quads. But something could certainly be tried, given time.

Updated hardware improves LUBM 8000 load rate in Virtuoso 6

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:01:30 GMT

We repeated the earlier LUBM 8000 experiment on a newer machine, with 2 x Xeon 5520 and 72G 1333MHz memory, and once again with the 2 machines as a networked cluster. Otherwise the settings were the same.

The load rate is now 160,739 triples-per-second.

	Virtuoso 6 (previous run)	Virtuoso 6 (new run)	Virtuoso 6 (newest run)
blades	1	1	2
processors	2 x Xeon 5410	2 x Xeon 5520	2 x Xeon 5520 + 2 x Xeon 5410 with 1x1GigE interconnect
memory	16G 667 MHz	72G 1333 MHz	72G 1333 MHz + 16G 667 MHz respectively
reported load rate triples-per-second	110,532	160,739	214,188

Again, if others talk about loading LUBM, so must we. Otherwise, this metric is rather uninteresting.

Single Virtuoso host loads 110,500 triples-per-second on LUBM 8000

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:12:34 GMT

LUBM load speed still seems to be a metric that is quoted in comparisons of RDF stores. Consequently, we too measured the load time of LUBM 8000, 1,068-million triples, on the newest Virtuoso.

The real time for the load was 161m 3s. The rate was 110,532 triples-per-second. The hardware was one machine with 2 x Xeon 5410 (quad core, 2.33 GHz) and 16G 667 MHz RAM. The software was Virtuoso 6 Cluster, configured into 8 partitions (processes) — one partition per CPU core. Each partition had its database striped over 6 disks total; the 6 disks on the system were shared between the 8 database processes.

The load was done on 8 streams, one per server process. At the beginning of the load, the CPU usage was 740% with no disk; at the end, it was around 700% with 25% disk wait. 100% counts here for one CPU core or one disk being constantly busy.

The RDF store was configured with the default two indices over quads, these being GSPO and OGPS. Text indexing of literals was not enabled. No materialization of entailed triples was made.

We think that LUBM loading is not a realistic benchmark for the world but since other people publish such numbers, so do we.

Comparing Virtuoso Performance on Different Processors

Thu, 28 May 2009 14:54:59 GMT

Over the years we have run Virtuoso on different hardware. We will here give a few figures that help identify the best price point for machines running Virtuoso.

Our test is very simple: Load 20 warehouses of TPC-C data, and then run one client per warehouse for 10,000 new orders. The way this is set up, disk I/O does not play a role and lock contention between the clients is minimal.

The test essentially has 20 server and 20 client threads running the same workload in parallel. The load time gives the single thread number; the 20 clients run gives the multi-threaded number. The test uses about 2-3 GB of data, so all is in RAM but is large enough not to be all in processor cache.

All times reported are real times, starting from the start of the first client and ending with the completion of the last client.

Do not confuse these results with official TPC-C. The measurement protocols are entirely incomparable.

Test	Platform	Load (seconds)	Run (seconds)	GHz / cores / threads
1	Amazon EC2 Extra Large (4 virtual cores)	340	42	1.2 GHz? / 4 / 1
1	Amazon EC2 Extra Large (4 virtual cores)	305	43.3	1.2 GHz? / 4 / 1
2	1 x dual-core AMD 5900	263	58.2	2.9 GHz / 2 / 1
3	2 x dual-core Xeon 5130 ("Woodcrest")	245	35.7	2.0 GHz / 4 / 1
4	2 x quad-core Xeon 5410 ("Harpertown")	237	18.0	2.33 GHz / 8 / 1
5	2 x quad-core Xeon 5520 ("Nehalem")	162	18.3	2.26 GHz / 8 / 2

We tried two different EC2 instances to see if there would be variation. The variation was quite small. The tested EC2 instances costs 20 US cents per hour. The AMD dual-core costs 550 US dollars with 8G. The 3 Xeon configurations are Supermicro boards with 667MHz memory for the Xeon 5130 ("Woodcrest") and Xeon 5410 ("Harpertown"), and 800MHz memory for the Nehalem. The Xeon systems cost between 4000 and 7000 US dollars, with 5000 for a configuration with 2 x Xeon 5520 ("Nehalem"), 72 GB RAM, and 8 x 500 GB SATA disks.

Caveat: Due to slow memory (we could not get faster within available time), the results for the Nehalem do not take full advantage of its principal edge over the previous generation, i.e., memory subsystem. We'll see another time with faster memories.

The operating systems were various 64 bit Linux distributions.

We did some further measurements comparing Harpertown and Nehalem processors. The Nehalem chip was a bit faster for a slightly lower clock but we did not see any of the twofold and greater differences advertised by Intel.

We tried some RDF operations on the two last systems:

operation	Harpertown	Nehalem
Build text index for DBpedia	1080s	770s
Entity Rank iteration	263s	251s

Then we tried to see if the core multithreading of Nehalem could be seen anywhere. To this effect, we ran the Fibonacci function in SQL to serve as an example of an all in-cache integer operation. 16 concurrent operations took exactly twice as long as 8 concurrent ones, as expected.

For something that used memory, we took a count of RDF quads on two different indices, getting the same count. The database was a cluster setup with one process per core, so a count involved one thread per core. The counts in series took 5.02s and in parallel they took 4.27s.

Then we took a more memory intensive piece that read the RDF quads table in the order of one index and for each row checked that there is the equal row on another, differently-partitioned index. This is a cross-partition join. One of the indices is read sequentially and the other at random. The throughput can be reported as random-lookups-per-second. The data was English DBpedia, about 140M triples. One such query takes a couple of minutes with a 650% CPU utilization. Running multiple such queries should show effects of core multithreading since we expect frequent cache misses.

On the host OS of the Nehalem system â

n cpu% rows per second

1 query 503 906,413

2 queries 1263 1,578,585

3 queries 1204 1,566,849
In a VM under Xen, on the Nehalem system â

n cpu% rows per second

1 query 652 799,293

2 queries 1266 1,486,710

3 queries 1222 1,484,093
On the host OS of the Harpertown system â

n cpu% rows per second

1 query 648 1,041,448

2 queries 708 1,124,866

n	cpu%	rows per second
1 query	503	906,413
2 queries	1263	1,578,585
3 queries	1204	1,566,849

n	cpu%	rows per second
1 query	652	799,293
2 queries	1266	1,486,710
3 queries	1222	1,484,093

n	cpu%	rows per second
1 query	648	1,041,448
2 queries	708	1,124,866

The CPU percentages are as reported by the OS: user + system CPU divided by real time.

So, Nehalem is in general somewhat faster, around 20-30%, than Harpertown. The effect of core multithreading can be noticed but is not huge, another 20% or so for situations with more threads than cores. The join where Harpertown did better could be attributed to its larger cache â 12 MB vs 8 MB.

We see that Xen has a measurable but not prohibitive overhead; count a little under 10% for everything, also tasks with no I/O. The VM was set up to have all CPU for the test and the queries did not do disk I/O.

The executables were compiled with gcc with default settings. Specifying -march=nocona (Core 2 target) dropped the cross-partition join time mentioned above from 128s to 122s on Harpertown. We did not try this on Nehalem but presume the effect would be the same, since the out-of-order unit is not much different. We did not do anything about process-to-memory affinity on Nehalem, which is a non-uniform architecture. We would expect this to increase performance since we have many equal size processes with even load.

The mainstay of the Nehalem value proposition is a better memory subsystem. Since the unit we got was at 800 MHz memory, we did not see any great improvement. So if you buy Nehalem, you should make sure it is with 1333 MHz memory, else the best case will not be over 50% over a 667 MHz Core 2-based Xeon.

Nehalem remains a better deal for us because of more memory per board. One Nehalem box with 72 GB costs less than two Harpertown boxes with 32 GB and offers almost the same performance. Having a lot of memory in a small space is key. With faster memory, it might even outperform two Harpertown boxes, but this remains to be seen.

If space were not a constraint, we could make a cluster of 12 small workstations for the price of our largest system and get still more memory and more processor power per unit of memory. The Nehalem box was almost 4x faster than the AMD box but then it has 9x the memory, so the CPU to memory ratio might be better with the smaller boxes.

Search at WWW 2009 (#2 of 5)

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:18:24 GMT

(Second of five posts related to the WWW 2009 conference, held the week of April 20, 2009.)

There was a workshop on semantic search plus a number of papers and of course keynotes from Google and Yahoo.

A general topic was the use of and access to query logs. Are these the monopoly of GYM (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) or should they be made more generally available? This is a privacy question. Use of query logs and click through of search results for improved ranking was mentioned many times throughout the conference.

The semantic search workshop was largely about benchmarks for keyword search in information retrieval. For linked data, which is a database proposition, these benchmarks are not really applicable. For document search aided by semantics derived by NLP, these are of course applicable. But there is a divide in approach.

Giovanni Tummarello presented Sig.ma, a service using Sindice's RDF index for collecting all RDF statements about entities matching some set of keywords. One could then choose which sources and which entities were the right ones. One could further store such a query and embed it on a page. The point was that the filtering done manually could be persisted and republished, so as to create dynamic content aggregated from selected live sources. Further speculating, one could use such user feedback for adjusting ranking, even though Sig.ma did not. We may adopt the idea of manually excluding sources into our browser too. Fresnel lenses are another thing to look at.

There was a paper by Josep M. Pujol and Pablo Rodriguez, of Telefonica Research, about returning search to the people by means of Porqpine, a peer-to-peer search implementation based on sharing search results from search engines among peers and indexing them locally as they were retrieved. For users with similar interests, this can give a community based ranking model but has issues of privacy. Another point was that with local processing and personal scale data volumes various kinds of brute force processing were feasible that would cost a lot for the web scale. Much can be done web scale but it must be done cleverly, not with a shell script and not so ad hoc.

As a counterpoint to this, there was a talk about Hadoop and Hive, a map-reduce-based SQL-like framework. One could do an SQL GROUP BY on text files with record parsing at run time, all spread over a Hadoop cluster. The issue is, if you have a petabyte of data, you may wish to run more than one ad hoc query on it. This means that joining between partitions and complex processing becomes important. This cannot be done without indices and complex query optimization, and needs a DBMS. Stonebraker and company are fully justified in their critique of map reduce. It looks like each generation must get dazzled by the oversimplified and then retrace the same discoveries of complexity as the previous one.

Some of our future plans were confirmed by what we saw, for example as concerns:

Interactively selecting sources for search, showing the graphs, then interactively refining
More social networks, more network analysis, and more work on social recommendation
Real time indexing of new pings, filling the store by forwarding queries to search engines, and harvesting micro-formats from results
Using entity extraction

These are all items in the pipeline, easy to do on top of the existing platform. For the machine learning and NLP parts, we will partner with others, details will be worked out while we work on the items we implement by ourselves.

Linked Data at WWW 2009 (#1 of 5)

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:28:11 GMT

(First of five posts related to the WWW 2009 conference, held the week of April 20, 2009.)

We gave a talk at the Linked Open Data workshop, LDOW 2009, at WWW 2009. I did not go very far into the technical points in the talk, as there was almost no time and the points are rather complex. Instead, I emphasized what new things had become possible with recent developments.

The problem we do not cease hearing about is scale. We have solved most of it. There is scale in the schema: Put together, ontologies go over a million classes/properties. Which ones are relevant depends, and the user should have the choice. The instance data is in the tens of billions of triples, much derived from Web 2.0 sources but also much published as RDF.

To make sense of this all, we need quick summaries and search. Without navigation via joins, the value will be limited. Fast joining, counting, grouping, and ranking are key.

People will use different terms for the same thing. The issue of identity is philosophical. In order to do reasoning one needs strong identity; a statement like x is a bit like y is not very useful in a database context. Whether any x and y can be considered the same depends on the context. So leave this for query time. The conditions under which two people are considered the same will depend on whether you are doing marketing analysis or law enforcement. A general purpose data store cannot anticipate all the possibilities, so smush on demand, as you go, as has been said many times.

Against this backdrop, we offer a solution with which anybody who so chooses can play with big data, whether a search or analytics player.

We are going in the direction of more and more ad hoc processing at larger and larger scale. With good query parallelization, we can do big joins without complex programming. No explicit Map Reduce jobs or the like. What was done with special code with special parallel programming models, can now be done in SQL and SPARQL.

To showcase this, we do linked data search, browsing, and so on, but are essentially a platform provider.

Entry costs into relatively high end databases have dropped significantly. A cluster with 1 TB of RAM sells for $75K or so at today's retail prices and fits under a desk. For intermittent use, the rent for 1TB RAM is $1228 per day on EC2. With this on one side and Virtuoso on the other, a lot that was impractical in the past is now within reach. Like Giovanni Tummarello put it for airplanes, the physics are as they were for da Vinci but materials and engines had to develop a bit before there was commercial potential. So it is also with analytics for everyone.

A remark from the audience was that all the stuff being shown, not limited to Virtuoso, was non-standard, having to do with text search, with ranking, with extensions, and was in fact not SPARQL and pure linked data principles. Further, by throwing this all together, one got something overcomplicated, too heavy.

I answered as follows, which apparently cannot be repeated too much:

First, everybody expects a text search box, and is conditioned to having one. No text search and no ranking is a non-starter. Ceterum censeo, for database, the next generation cannot be less expressive than the previous. All of SQL and then some is where SPARQL must be. The barest minimum is being able to say anything one can say in SQL, and then justify SPARQL by saying that it is better for heterogenous data, schema last, and so on. On top of this, transitivity and rules will not hurt. For now, the current SPARQL working group will at least reach basic SQL parity; the edge will still remain implementation dependent.

Another remark was that joining is slow. Depends. Anything involving more complex disk access than linear reading of a blob is generally not good for interactive use. But with adequate memory, and with all hot spots in memory, we do some 3.2 million random-accesses-per-second on 12 cores, with easily 80% platform utilization for a single large query. The high utilization means that times drop as processing gets divided over more partitions.

There was a talk about MashQL by Mustafa Jarrar, concerning an abstraction on top of SPARQL for easy composition of tree-structured queries. The idea was that such queries can be evaluated "on the fly" as they are being composed. As it happens, we already have an XML-based query abstraction layer incorporated into Virtuoso 6.0's built-in Faceted Data Browser Service, and the effects are probably quite similar. The most important point here is that by using XML, both of these approaches are interoperable against a Virtuoso back-end. Along similar lines, we did not get to talk to the G Facets people but our message to them is the same: Use the faceted browser service to get vastly higher performance when querying against Linked Data, be it DBpedia or the entity LOD Cloud. Virtuoso 6.0 (Open Source Edition) "TP1" is now publicly available as a Technology Preview (beta).

We heard that there is an effort for porting Freebase's Parallax to SPARQL. The same thing applies to this. With a number of different data viewers on top of SPARQL, we come closer to broad-audience linked-data applications. These viewers are still too generic for the end user, though. We fully believe that for both search and transactions, application-domain-specific workflows will stay relevant. But these can be made to a fair degree by specializing generic linked-data-bound controls and gluing them together with some scripting.

As said before, the application will interface the user to the vocabulary. The vocabulary development takes the modeling burden from the application and makes for interchangeable experience on the same data. The data in turn is "virtualized" into the database cloud or the local secure server, as the use case may require.

For ease of adoption, open competition, and safety from lock-in, the community needs a SPARQL whose usability is not totally dependent on vendor extensions. But we might de facto have that in just a bit, whenever there is a working draft from the SPARQL WG.

Another topic that we encounter often is the question of integration (or lack thereof) between communities. For example, database conferences reject semantic web papers and vice versa. Such politics would seem to emerge naturally but are nonetheless detrimental. We really should partner with people who write papers as their principal occupation. We ourselves do software products and use very little time for papers, so some of the bad reviews we have received do make a legitimate point. By rights, we should go for database venues but we cannot have this take too much time. So we are open to partnering for splitting the opportunity cost of multiple submissions.

For future work, there is nothing radically new. We continue testing and productization of cluster databases. Just deliver what is in the pipeline. The essential nature of this is adding more and more cases of better and better parallelization in different query situations. The present usage patterns work well for finding bugs and performance bottlenecks. For presentation, our goal is to have third party viewers operate with our platform. We cannot completely leave data browsing and UI to third parties since we must from time to time introduce various unique functionality. Most interaction should however go via third party applications.

Web Scale and Fault Tolerance

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:18:06 GMT

One concern about Virtuoso Cluster is fault tolerance. This post talks about the basics of fault tolerance and what we can do with this, from improving resilience and optimizing performance to accommodating bulk loads without impacting interactive response. We will see that this is yet another step towards a 24/7 web-scale Linked Data Web. We will see how large scale, continuous operation, and redundancy are related.

It has been said many times â when things are large enough, failures become frequent. In view of this, basic storage of partitions in multiple copies is built into the Virtuoso cluster from the start. Until now, this feature has not been tested or used very extensively, aside from the trivial case of keeping all schema information in synchronous replicas on all servers.

Approaches to Fault Tolerance

Fault tolerance has many aspects but it starts with keeping data in at least two copies. There are shared-disk cluster databases like Oracle RAC that do not depend on partitioning. With these, as long as the disk image is intact, servers can come and go. The fault tolerance of the disk in turn comes from mirroring done by the disk controller. Raids other than mirrored disk are not really good for databases because of write speed.

With shared-nothing setups like Virtuoso, fault tolerance is based on multiple servers keeping the same logical data. The copies are synchronized transaction-by-transaction but are not bit-for-bit identical nor write-by-write synchronous as is the case with mirrored disks.

There are asynchronous replication schemes generally based on log shipping, where the replica replays the transaction log of the master copy. The master copy gets the updates, the replica replays them. Both can take queries. These do not guarantee an entirely ACID fail-over but for many applications they come close enough.

In a tightly coupled cluster, it is possible to do synchronous, transactional updates on multiple copies without great added cost. Sending the message to two places instead of one does not make much difference since it is the latency that counts. But once we go to wide area networks, this becomes as good as unworkable for any sort of update volume. Thus, wide area replication must in practice be asynchronous.

This is a subject for another discussion. For now, the short answer is that wide area log shipping must be adapted to the application's requirements for synchronicity and consistency. Also, exactly what content is shipped and to where depends on the application. Some application-specific logic will likely be involved; more than this one cannot say without a specific context.

Basics of Partition Fail-Over

For now, we will be concerned with redundancy protecting against broken hardware, software slowdown, or crashes inside a single site.

The basic idea is simple: Writes go to all copies; reads that must be repeatable or serializable (i.e., locking) go to the first copy; reads that refer to committed state without guarantee of repeatability can be balanced among all copies. When a copy goes offline, nobody needs to know, as long as there is at least one copy online for each partition. The exception in practice is when there are open cursors or such stateful things as aggregations pending on a copy that goes down. Then the query or transaction will abort and the application can retry. This looks like a deadlock to the application.

Coming back online is more complicated. This requires establishing that the recovering copy is actually in sync. In practice this requires a short window during which no transactions have uncommitted updates. Sometimes, forcing this can require aborting some transactions, which again looks like a deadlock to the application.

When an error is seen, such as a process no longer accepting connections and dropping existing cluster connections, we in practice go via two stages. First, the operations that directly depended on this process are aborted, as well as any computation being done on behalf of the disconnected server. At this stage, attempting to read data from the partition of the failed server will go to another copy but writes will still try to update all copies and will fail if the failed copy continues to be offline. After it is established that the failed copy will stay off for some time, writes may be re-enabled â but now having the failed copy rejoin the cluster will be more complicated, requiring an atomic window to ensure sync, as mentioned earlier.

For the DBA, there can be intermittent software crashes where a failed server automatically restarts itself, and there can be prolonged failures where this does not happen. Both are alerts but the first kind can wait. Since a system must essentially run itself, it will wait for some time for the failed server to restart itself. During this window, all reads of the failed partition go to the spare copy and writes give an error. If the spare does not come back up in time, the system will automatically re-enable writes on the spare but now the failed server may no longer rejoin the cluster without a complex sync cycle. This all can happen in well under a minute, faster than a human operator can react. The diagnostics can be done later.

If the situation was a hardware failure, recovery consists of taking a spare server and copying the database from the surviving online copy. This done, the spare server can come on line. Copying the database can be done while online and accepting updates but this may take some time, maybe an hour for every 200G of data copied over a network. In principle this could be automated by scripting, but we would normally expect a human DBA to be involved.

As a general rule, reacting to the failure goes automatically without disruption of service but bringing the failed copy online will usually require some operator action.

Levels of Tolerance and Performance

The only way to make failures totally invisible is to have all in duplicate and provisioned so that the system never runs at more than half the total capacity. This is often not economical or necessary. This is why we can do better, using the spare capacity for more than standby.

Imagine keeping a repository of linked data. Most of the content will come in through periodic bulk replacement of data sets. Some data will come in through pings from applications publishing FOAF and similar. Some data will come through on-demand RDFization of resources.

The performance of such a repository essentially depends on having enough memory. Having this memory in duplicate is just added cost. What we can do instead is have all copies store the whole partition but when routing queries, apply range partitioning on top of the basic hash partitioning. If one partition stores IDs 64K - 128K, the next partition 128K - 192K, and so forth, and all partitions are stored in two full copies, we can route reads to the first 32K IDs to the first copy and reads to the second 32K IDs to the second copy. In this way, the copies will keep different working sets. The RAM is used to full advantage.

Of course, if there is a failure, then the working set will degrade, but if this is not often and not for long, this can be quite tolerable. The alternate expense is buying twice as much RAM, likely meaning twice as many servers. This workload is memory intensive, thus servers should have the maximum memory they can have without going to parts that are so expensive one gets a new server for the price of doubling memory.

Background Bulk Processing

When loading data, the system is online in principle, but query response can be quite bad. A large RDF load will involve most memory and queries will miss the cache. The load will further keep most disks busy, so response is not good. This is the case as soon as a server's partition of the database is four times the size of RAM or greater. Whether the work is bulk-load or bulk-delete makes little difference.

But if partitions are replicated, we can temporarily split the database so that the first copies serve queries and the second copies do the load. If the copies serving on line activities do some updates also, these updates will be committed on both copies. But the load will be committed on the second copy only. This is fully appropriate as long as the data are different. When the bulk load is done, the second copy of each partition will have the full up to date state, including changes that came in during the bulk load. The online activity can be now redirected to the second copies and the first copies can be overwritten in the background by the second copies, so as to again have all data in duplicate.

Failures during such operations are not dangerous. If the copies doing the bulk load fail, the bulk load will have to be restarted. If the front end copies fail, the front end load goes to the copies doing the bulk load. Response times will be bad until the bulk load is stopped, but no data is lost.

This technique applies to all data intensive background tasks â calculation of entity search ranks, data cleansing, consistency checking, and so on. If two copies are needed to keep up with the online load, then data can be kept just as well in three copies instead of two. This method applies to any data-warehouse-style workload which must coexist with online access and occasional low volume updating.

Configurations of Redundancy

Right now, we can declare that two or more server processes in a cluster form a group. All data managed by one member of the group is stored by all others. The members of the group are interchangeable. Thus, if there is four-servers-worth of data, then there will be a minimum of eight servers. Each of these servers will have one server process per core. The first hardware failure will not affect operations. For the second failure, there is a 1/7 chance that it stops the whole system, if it falls on the server whose pair is down. If groups consist of three servers, for a total of 12, the two first failures are guaranteed not to interrupt operations; for the third, there is a 1/10 chance that it will.

We note that for big databases, as said before, the RAM cache capacity is the sum of all the servers' RAM when in normal operation.

There are other, more dynamic ways of splitting data among servers, so that partitions migrate between servers and spawn extra copies of themselves if not enough copies are online. The Google File System (GFS) does something of this sort at the file system level; Amazon's Dynamo does something similar at the database level. The analogies are not exact, though.

If data is partitioned in this manner, for example into 1K slices, each in duplicate, with the rule that the two duplicates will not be on the same physical server, the first failure will not break operations but the second probably will. Without extra logic, there is a probability that the partitions formerly hosted by the failed server have their second copies randomly spread over the remaining servers. This scheme equalizes load better but is less resilient.

Maintenance and Continuity

Databases may benefit from defragmentation, rebalancing of indices, and so on. While these are possible online, by definition they affect the working set and make response times quite bad as soon as the database is significantly larger than RAM. With duplicate copies, the problem is largely solved. Also, software version changes need not involve downtime.

Present Status

The basics of replicated partitions are operational. The items to finalize are about system administration procedures and automatic synchronization of recovering copies. This must be automatic because if it is not, the operator will find a way to forget something or do some steps in the wrong order. This also requires a management view that shows what the different processes are doing and whether something is hung or failing repeatedly. All this is for the recovery part; taking failed partitions offline is easy.

Beyond Applications - Introducing the Planetary Datasphere (Part 2)

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:50:56 GMT

We have looked at the general implications of the DataSphere, a universal, ubiquitous database infrastructure, on end-user experience and application development and content. Now we will look at what this means at the back end, from hosting to security to server software and hardware.

Application Hosting

For the infrastructure provider, hosting the DataSphere is no different from hosting large Web 2.0 sites. This may be paid for by users, as in the cloud computing model where users rent capacity for their own purposes, or by advertisers, as in most of Web 2.0.

Clouds play a role in this as places with high local connectivity. The DataSphere is the atmosphere; the Cloud is an atmospheric phenomenon.

What of Proprietary Data and its Security?

Having proprietary data does not imply using a proprietary language. I would say that for any domain of discourse, no matter how private or specialized, at least some structural concepts can be borrowed from public, more generic sources. This lowers training thresholds and facilitates integration. Being able to integrate does not imply opening one's own data. To take an analogy, if you have a bunker with closed circuit air recycling, you still breathe air, even if that air is cut off from the atmosphere at large. For places with complex existing RDBMS security, the best is to map the RDBMS to RDF on the fly, always running all requests through the RDBMS. This implicitly preserves any policy or label based security schemes.

What of Individual Privacy on the Open Web?

The more complex situations will be found in environments with mixed security needs, as in social networking with partly-open and partly-closed profiles. The FOAF+SSL solution with https:// URIs is one approach. For query processing, we have a question of enforcing instance-level policies. In the DataSphere, granting privileges on tables and views no longer makes sense. In SQL, a policy means that behind the scenes the DBMS will add extra criteria to queries and updates depending on who is issuing them. The query processor adds conditions like getting the user's department ID and comparing it to the department ID on the payroll record. Labeled security is a scheme where data rows themselves contain security tags and the DBMS enforces these, row by row.

I would say that these techniques are suited for highly-structured situations where the roles, compartments, and needs are clear, and where the organization has the database know-how to write, test, and deploy such rules by the table, row, and column. This does not sit well with schema-last. I would not bet much on an average developer's capacity for making airtight policies on RDF data where not even 100% schema-adherence is guaranteed.

Doing security at the RDF graph level seems more appropriate. In many use cases, the graph is analogous to a photo album or a file system directory. A Data Space can be divided into graphs to provide more granularity for expressing topic, provenance, or security. If policy conditions apply mostly to the graph, then things are not as likely to slip by, for example, policy rules missing some infrequent misuse of the schema. In these cases, the burden on the query processor is also not excessive: Just as with documents, the container (table, graph) is the object of access grants, not the individual sentences (DBMS records, RDF triples) in the document.

It is left to the application to present a choice of graph level policies to the user. Exactly what these will be depends on the domain of discourse. A policy might restrict access to a meeting in a calendar to people whose OpenIDs figure in the attendee list, or limit access to a photo album to people mentioned in the owner's social network. Defining such policies is typically a task for the application developer.

The difference between the Document Web and the Linked Data Web is that while the Document Web enforces security when a thing is returned to the user, Linked Data Web enforcement must occur whenever a query references something, even if this is an intermediate result not directly shown to the user.

The DataSphere will offer a generic policy scheme, filtering what graphs are accessed in a given query situation. Other applications may then verify the safety of one's disclosed information using the same DataSphere infrastructure. Of course, the user must rely on the infrastructure provider to correctly enforce these rules. Then again, some users will operate and audit their own infrastructure anyway.

Federation vs. Centralization

On the open web, there is the question of federation vs. centralization. If an application is seen to be an interface to a vocabulary, it becomes more agnostic with respect to this. In practice, if we are talking about hosted services, what is hosted together joins much faster. Data Spaces with lots of interlinking, such as closely connected social networks, will tend to cluster together on the same cloud to facilitate joint operation. Data is ubiquitous and not location-conscious, but what one can efficiently do with it depends on location. Joint access patterns favor joint location. Due to technicalities of the matter, single database clusters will run complex queries within the cluster 100 to 1000 times faster than between clusters. The size of such data clouds may be in the hundreds-of-billions of triples. It seems to make sense to have data belonging to same-type or jointly-used applications close together. In practice, there will arise partitioning by type of usage, user profile, etc., but this is no longer airtight and applications more-or-less float on top of all of this.

A search engine can host a copy of the Document Web and allow text lookups on it. But a text lookup is a single well-defined query that happens to parallelize and partition very well. A search engine can also have all the structured public data copied, but the problem there is that queries are a lot less predictable and may take orders of magnitude more resources than a single text lookup. As a partial answer, even now, we can set up a database so that the first million single-row joins cost the user nothing, but doing more requires a special subscription.

The cost for hosting a trillion triples will vary radically in function of what throughput is promised. This may result in pricing per service level, a bit like ISP pricing varies in function of promised connectivity. Queries can be run for free if no throughput guarantee applies, and might cost more if the host promises at least five-million joins-per-second including infrequently-accessed data.

Performance and cost dynamics will probably lead to the emergence of domain-specific clusters of colocated Data Spaces. The landscape will be hybrid, where usage drives data colocation. A single Google is not a practical solution to the world's spectrum of query needs.

What is the Cost of Schema-Last?

The DataSphere proposition is predicated on a worldwide database fabric that can store anything, just like a network can transport anything. It cannot enforce a fixed schema, just like TCP/IP cannot say that it will transport only email. This is continuous schema evolution. Well, TCP/IP can transport anything but it does transport a lot of HTML and email. Similarly, the DataSphere can optimize for some common vocabularies.

We have seen that an application-specific relational schema is often 10 times more efficient than an equivalent completely generic RDF representation of the same thing. The gap may narrow, but task specific representations will keep an edge. We ought to know, as we do both.

While anything can be represented, the masses are not that creative. For any data-hosting provider, making a specialized representation for the top 100 entities may cut data size in half or better. This is a behind-the-scenes optimization that will in time be a matter of course.

Historically, our industry has been driven by two phenomena:

New PCs every 2 years. To make this necessary, Windows has been getting bigger and bigger, and not upgrading is not an option if one must exchange documents with new data formats and keep up with security.
Agility, or ad hoc over planned. The reason the RDBMS won over CODASYL network databases was that one did not have to define what queries could be made when creating the database. With the Linked Data Web, we have one more step in this direction when we say that one does not have to decide what can be represented when creating the database.

To summarize, there is some cost to schema-last, but then our industry needs more complexity to keep justifying constant investment. The cost is in this sense not all bad.

Building the DataSphere may be the next great driver of server demand. As a case in point, Cisco, whose fortune was made when the network became ubiquitous, just entered the server game. It's in the air.

DataSphere Precursors

Right now, we have the Linked Open Data movement with lots of new data being added. We have the drive for data- and reputation-portability. We have Freebase as a demonstrator of end-users actually producing structured data. We have convergence of terminology around DBpedia, FOAF, SIOC, and more. We have demonstrators of useful data integration on the RDF stack in diverse fields, especially life sciences.

We have a totally ubiquitous network for the distribution of this, plus database technology to make this work.

We have a practical need for semantics, as search is getting saturated, email is getting killed by spam, and information overload is a constant. Social networks can be leveraged for solving a lot of this, if they can only be opened.

Of course, there is a call for transparency in society at large. Well, the battle of transparency vs. spin is a permanent feature of human existence but even there, we cannot ignore the possibilities of open data.

Databases and Servers

Technically, what does this take? Mostly, this takes a lot of memory. The software is there and we are productizing it as we speak. As with other data intensive things, the key is scalable querying over clusters of commodity servers. Nothing we have not heard before. Of course, the DBMS must know about RDF specifics to get the right query plans and so on but this we have explained elsewhere.

This all comes down to the cost of memory. No amount of CPU or network speed will make any difference if data is not in memory. Right now, a board with 8G and a dual core AMD X86-64 and 4 disks may cost about $700. 2 x 4 core Xeon and 16G and 8 disks may be $4000, counting just the components. In our experience, about 32G per billion triples is a minimum. This must be backed by a few independent disks so as to fill the cache in parallel. A cluster with 1 TB of RAM would be under $100K if built from low end boards.

The workload is all about large joins across partitions. The queries parallelize well, thus using the largest and most expensive machines for building blocks is not cost efficient. Having absolutely everything in RAM is also not cost efficient, but it is necessary to have many disks to absorb the random access load. Disk access is predominantly random, unlike some analytics workloads that can read serially. If SSD's get a bit cheaper, one could have SSD for the database and disk for backup.

With large data centers, redundancy becomes an issue. The most cost effective redundancy is simply storing partitions in duplicate or triplicate on different commodity servers. The DBMS software should handle the replication and fail-over.

For operating such systems, scaling-on-demand is necessary. Data must move between servers, and adding or replacing servers should be an on-the-fly operation. Also, since access is essentially never uniform, the most commonly accessed partitions may benefit from being kept in more copies than less frequently accessed ones. The DBMS must be essentially self administrating since these things are quite complex and easily intractable if one does not have in depth understanding of this rather complex field.

The best price point for hardware varies with time. Right now, the optimum is to have many basic motherboards with maximum memory in a rack unit, then another unit with local disks for each motherboard. Much cheaper than SAN's and Infiniband fabrics.

Conclusions and Next Steps

The ingredients and use cases are there. If server clusters with 1TB RAM begin under $100K, the cost of deployment is small compared to personnel costs.

Bootstrapping the DataSphere from current Linked Open Data, such as DBpedia, OpenCYC, Freebase, and every sort of social network, is feasible. Aside from private data integration and analytics efforts and E-science, the use cases are liberating social networks and C2C and some aspects of search from silos, overcoming spam, and mass use of semantics extracted from text. Emergent effects will then carry the ball to places we have not yet been.

The Linked Data Web has its origins in Semantic Web research, and many of the present participants come from these circles. Things may have been slowed down by a disconnect, only too typical of human activity, between Semantic Web research on one hand and database engineering on the other. Right now, the challenge is one of engineering. As documented on this blog, we have worked quite a bit on cluster databases, mostly but not exclusively with RDF use cases. The actual challenges of this are however not at all what is discussed in Semantic Web conferences. These have to do with complexities of parallelism, timing, message bottlenecks, transactions, and the like, i.e., hardcore engineering. These are difficult beyond what the casual onlooker might guess but not impossible. The details that remain to be worked out are nothing semantic, they are hardcore database, concerning automatic provisioning and such matters.

It is as if the Semantic Web people look with envy at the Web 2.0 side where there are big deployments in production, yet they do not seem quite ready to take the step themselves. Well, I will write some other time about research and engineering. For now, the message is &mdash go for it. Stay tuned for more announcements, as we near production with our next generation of software.

An Update on Virtuoso Development

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:23:49 GMT

It is time for an update on Virtuoso developments.

We continue enhancing our hosting of the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud at http://lod.openlinksw.com.

We have now added result ranking for both text and URIs. Text hit scores are based on word frequency and proximity; URI scores are based on link density.

We calculate each URI's rank by adding up references and weighing these by the score of the referrer. This is like in web search. Each iteration of the ranking will join every referred to each of its referrers. We do about 1.2 million such joins per second, across partitions, over 2.2 billion triples and 400M distinct subjects without any great optimization, just using SQL stored procedures and partitioned function calls. This is a sort of SQL map-reduce. We would do over twice as fast if it were all in C but this is adequate for now. The more interesting bit will be tuning the scoring based on what type of link we have. This is what the web search engines cannot do as well, since document links are untyped.

We are moving toward a decent user interface for the LOD hosting, including offering ready-made domain-specific queries, e.g., biomedical.

Things like "URI finding with autocomplete" are done and just have to be put online.

With linked data, there is the whole question of identifier choice. We will have a special page just for this. There we show reference statistics, synonyms declared by owl:sameAs, synonyms determined by shared property values, etc. In this way we become a terminology lookup service.

Copies of the LOD cluster system are available for evaluators, on a case by case basis. We will make this publicly available on EC2 also in not too long.

Otherwise, we continue working on productization, primarily things like reliability and recovery. One exercise is running TPC-C with intentionally stupid partitioning, so that almost all joins and deadlocks are distributed. Then we simulate a cluster interconnect that drops messages now and then, sometimes kill server processes, and still keep full ACID properties. Cloud capable, also in bad weather.

The open source release of Virtuoso 6 (no cluster) is basically ready to go, mostly this is a question of logistics.

I will talk about these things in greater individual detail next week.

Facets and Large Ontologies of the LOD Cloud

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:21:05 GMT

We have just submitted this paper to the WWW09 Linked Open Data Workshop.

The thing is intermittently live with both Dbpedia on one instance and a LOD Cloud data collection of about 2 billion triples on another. We will give out the links once we have tested a bit more.

The present activity is all about testing Virtuoso 6 for release, cluster and otherwise.

Linked Data & The Year 2009 (updated)

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:17:06 GMT

As is fitting for the season, I will editorialize a bit about what has gone before and what is to come.

Sir Tim said it at WWW08 in Beijing â linked data and the linked data web is the semantic web and the Web done right.

The grail of ad hoc analytics on infinite data has lost none of its appeal. We have seen fresh evidence of this in the realm of data warehousing products, as well as storage in general.

The benefits of a data model more abstract than the relational are being increasingly appreciated also outside the data web circles. Microsoft's Entity Frameworks technology is an example. Agility has been a buzzword for a long time. Everything should be offered in a service based business model and should interoperate and integrate with everything else â business needs first; schema last.

Not to forget that when money is tight, reuse of existing assets and paying on a usage basis are naturally emphasized. Information, as the asset it is, is none the less important, on the contrary. But even with information, value should be realized economically, which, among other things, entails not reinventing the wheel.

It is against this backdrop that this year will play out.

As concerns research, I will again quote Harry Halpin at ESWC 2008: "Men will fight in a war, and even lose a war, for what they believe just. And it may come to pass that later, even though the war were lost, the things then fought for will emerge under another name and establish themselves as the prevailing reality" [or words to this effect].

Something like the data web, and even the semantic web, will happen. Harry's question was whether this would be the descendant of what is today called semantic web research.

I heard in conversation about a project for making a very large metadata store. I also heard that the makers did not particularly insist on this being RDF-based, though.

Why should such a thing be RDF-based? If it is already accepted that there will be ad hoc schema and that queries ought to be able to view the data from all angles, not be limited by having indices one way and not another way, then why not RDF?

The justification of RDF is in reusing and linking-to data and terminology out there. Another justification is that by using an RDF store, one is spared a lot of work and tons of compromises which attend making an entity-attribute-value (EAV, i.e., triple) store on a generic RDBMS. The sem-web world has been there, trust me. We came out well because we put all inside the RDBMS, lowest level, which you can't do unless you own the RDBMS. Source access is not enough; you also need the knowledge.

Technicalities aside, the question is one of proprietary vs. standards-based. This is not only so with software components, where standards have consistently demonstrated benefits, but now also with the data. Zemanta and OpenCalais serving DBpedia URIs are examples. Even in entirely closed applications, there is benefit in reusing open vocabularies and identifiers: One does not need to create a secret language for writing a secret memo.

Where data is a carrier of value, its value is enhanced by it being easy to repurpose (i.e., standard vocabularies) and to discover (i.e., data set metadata). As on the web, so on the enterprise intranet. In this lies the strength of RDF as opposed to proprietary flexible database schemes. This is a qualitative distinction.

In hoc signo vinces.

In this light, we welcome the voiD (VOcabulary of Interlinked Data), which is the first promise of making federatable data discoverable. Now that there is a point of focus for these efforts, the needed expressivity will no doubt accrete around the voiD core.

For data as a service, we clearly see the value of open terminologies as prerequisites for service interchangeability, i.e., creating a marketplace. XML is for the transaction; RDF is for the discovery, query, and analytics. As with databases in general, first there was the transaction; then there was the query. Same here. For monetizing the query, there are models ranging from renting data sets and server capacity in the clouds to hosted services where one pays for processing past a certain quota. For the hosted case, we just removed a major barrier to offering unlimited query against unlimited data when we completed the Virtuoso Anytime feature. With this, the user gets what is found within a set time, which is already something, and in case of needing more, one can pay for the usage. Of course, we do not forget advertising. When data has explicit semantics, contextuality is better than with keywords.

For these visions to materialize on top of the linked data platform, linked data must join the world of data. This means messaging that is geared towards the database public. They know the problem, but the RDF proposition is still not well enough understood for it to connect.

For the relational IT world, we offer passage to the data web and its promise of integration through RDF mapping. We are also bringing out new Microsoft Entity Framework components. This goes in the direction of defining a unified database frontier with RDF and non-RDF entity models side by side.

For OpenLink Software, 2008 was about developing technology for scale, RDF as well as generic relational. We did show a tiny preview with the Billion Triples Challenge demo. Now we are set to come out with the real thing, featuring, among other things, faceted search at the billion triple scale. We started offering ready-to-go Virtuoso-hosted linked open data sets on Amazon EC2 in December. Now we continue doing this based on our next-generation server, as well as make Virtuoso 6 Cluster commercially available. Technical specifics are amply discussed on this blog. There are still some new technology things to be developed this year; first among these are strong SPARQL federation, and on-the-fly resizing of server clusters. On the research partnerships side, we have an EU grant for working with the OntoWiki project from the University of Leipzig, and we are partners in DERI's LÃon project. These will provide platforms for further demonstrating the "web" in data web, as in web-scale smart databasing.

2009 will see change through scale. The things that exist will start interconnecting and there will be emergent value. Deployments will be larger and scale will be readily available through a services model or by installation at one's own facilities. We may see the start of Search becoming Find, like Kingsley says, meaning semantics of data guiding search. Entity extraction will multiply data volumes and bring parts of the data web to real time.

Exciting 2009 to all.

Virtuoso 6 FAQ directory

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:46:18 GMT

We have received various inquiries on high-end metadata stores. I will here go through some salient questions. The requested features include:

Scaling to trillions of triples
Running on clusters of commodity servers
Running in federated environments, possibly over wide area networks
Built-in inference
Transactions
Security
Support for extra triple level metadata, such as security attributes

Q: What is the storage cost per triple? answer

Q: What is the cost to insert a triple? answer

Q: What is the cost to delete a triple? (For the insertion itself, as well as for updating any indices) answer

Q: What is the cost to search on a given property? answer

Q: What data types are supported? answer

Q: What inferencing is supported? answer

Q: Is the inferencing dynamic or is an extra step required before inferencing can be used? answer

Q: Do you support full text search? answer

Q: What programming interfaces are supported? Do you support standard SPARQL protocol? answer

Q: How can data be partitioned across multiple servers? answer

Q: How many triples can a single server handle? answer

Q: What is the performance impact of going from the billion to the trillion triples? answer

Q: Do you support additional metadata for triples, such as timestamps, security tags etc? answer

Q: Should we use RDF for our large metadata store? What are the alternatives? answer

Q: How multithreaded is Virtuoso? answer

Q: Can multiple servers run off a single shared disk database? answer

Q: Can Virtuoso run on a SAN? answer

Q: How does Virtuoso join across partitions? answer

Q: Does Virtuoso support federated triple stores? If there are multiple SPARQL end points, can Virtuoso be used to do queries joining between these? answer

Q: How many servers can a cluster contain? answer

Q: How do I reconfigure a cluster, adding and removing machines, etc? answer

Q: How will Virtuoso handle regional clusters? answer

Q: Is there a mechanism for terminating long running queries? answer

Q: Can the user be asynchronously notified when a long running query terminates? answer

Q: How many concurrent queries can Virtuoso handle? answer

Q: What is the relative performance of SPARQL queries vs. native relational queries answer

Q: Does Virtuoso support property tables? answer

Q: What performance metrics does Virtuoso offer? answer

Q: What support do you provide for concurrency/multithreading operation? Is your interface thread-safe? answer

Q: What level of ACID properties are supported? answer

Q: Do you provide the ability to atomically add a set of triples, where either all are added or none are added? answer

Q: Do you provide the ability to add a set of triples, respecting the isolation property (so concurrent accessors either see none of the triple values, or all of them)? answer

Q: What is the time to start a database, create/open a graph? answer

Q: What sort of security features are built into Virtuoso? answer

"E Pluribus Unum", or "Inversely Functional Identity", or "Smooshing Without the Stickiness" (re-updated)

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:14:43 GMT

What a terrible word, smooshing... I have understood it to mean that when you have two names for one thing, you give each all the attributes of the other. This smooshes them together, makes them interchangeable.

This is complex, so I will begin with the point and the interested may read on for the details and implications. Starting with soon to be released version 6, Virtuoso allows you to say that two things, if they share a uniquely identifying property, are the same. Examples of uniquely identifying properties would be a book's ISBN number, or a person's social security plus full name. In relational language this is a unique key, and in RDF parlance, an inverse functional property.

In most systems, such problems are dealt with as a preprocessing step before querying. For example, all the items that are considered the same will get the same properties or at load time all identifiers will be normalized according to some application rules. This is good if the rules are clear and understood. This is so in closed situations, where things tend to have standard identifiers to begin with. But on the open web this is not so clear cut.

In this post, we show how to do these things ad hoc, without materializing anything. At the end, we also show how to materialize identity and what the consequences of this are with open web data. We use real live web crawls from the Billion Triples Challenge data set.

On the linked data web, there are independently arising descriptions of the same thing and thus arises the need to smoosh, if these are to be somehow integrated. But this is only the beginning of the problems.

To address these, we have added the option of specifying that some property will be considered inversely functional in a query. This is done at run time and the property does not really have to be inversely functional in the pure sense. foaf:name will do for an example. This simply means that for purposes of the query concerned, two subjects which have at least one foaf:name in common are considered the same. In this way, we can join between FOAF files. With the same database, a query about music preferences might consider having the same name as "same enough," but a query about criminal prosecution would obviously need to be more precise about sameness.

Our ontology is defined like this:

-- Populate a named graph with the triples you want to use in query time inferencing

ttlp ( '
        @prefix foaf: <xmlns="http" xmlns.com="xmlns.com" foaf="foaf">
                      </>
        @prefix owl:  <xmlns="http" www.w3.org="www.w3.org" owl="owl">
                      </>
        foaf:mbox_sha1sum  a  owl:InverseFunctionalProperty  .
        foaf:name          a  owl:InverseFunctionalProperty  .
       ',
       'xx',
       'b3sifp'
     );

-- Declare that the graph contains an ontology for use in query time inferencing 

rdfs_rule_set ( 'http://example.com/rules/b3sifp#',
                'b3sifp'
              );

Then use it:

sparql 
   DEFINE input:inference "http://example.com/rules/b3sifp#" 
   SELECT DISTINCT ?k ?f1 ?f2 
   WHERE { ?k   foaf:name     ?n                   . 
           ?n   bif:contains  "'Kjetil Kjernsmo'"  . 
           ?k   foaf:knows    ?f1                  . 
           ?f1  foaf:knows    ?f2 
         };

VARCHAR                                  VARCHAR                                           VARCHAR
______________________________________   _______________________________________________   ______________________________

http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me   http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who/robin-berjon   http://twitter.com/dajobe
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me   http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who/robin-berjon   http://twitter.com/net_twitter
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me   http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who/robin-berjon   http://twitter.com/amyvdh
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me   http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who/robin-berjon   http://twitter.com/pom
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me   http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who/robin-berjon   http://twitter.com/mattb
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me   http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who/robin-berjon   http://twitter.com/davorg
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me   http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who/robin-berjon   http://twitter.com/distobj
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me   http://norman.walsh.name/knows/who/robin-berjon   http://twitter.com/perigrin
....

Without the inference, we get no matches. This is because the data in question has one graph per FOAF file, and blank nodes for persons. No graph references any person outside the ones in the graph. So if somebody is mentioned as known, then without the inference there is no way to get to what that person's FOAF file says, since the same individual will be a different blank node there. The declaration in the context named b3sifp just means that all things with a matching foaf:name or foaf:mbox_sha1sum are the same.

Sameness means that two are the same for purposes of DISTINCT or GROUP BY, and if two are the same, then both have the UNION of all of the properties of both.

If this were a naive smoosh, then the individuals would have all the same properties but would not be the same for DISTINCT.

If we have complex application rules for determining whether individuals are the same, then one can materialize owl:sameAs triples and keep them in a separate graph. In this way, the original data is not contaminated and the materialized volume stays reasonable â nothing like the blow-up of duplicating properties across instances.

The pro-smoosh argument is that if every duplicate makes exactly the same statements, then there is no great blow-up. Best and worst cases will always depend on the data. In rough terms, the more ad hoc the use, the less desirable the materialization. If the usage pattern is really set, then a relational-style application-specific representation with identity resolved at load time will perform best. We can do that too, but so can others.

The principal point is about agility as concerns the inference. Run time is more agile than materialization, and if the rules change or if different users have different needs, then materialization runs into trouble. When talking web scale, having multiple users is a given; it is very uneconomical to give everybody their own copy, and the likelihood of a user accessing any significant part of the corpus is minimal. Even if the queries were not limited, the user would typically not wait for the answer of a query doing a scan or aggregation over 1 billion blog posts or something of the sort. So queries will typically be selective. Selective means that they do not access all of the data, hence do not benefit from ready-made materialization for things they do not even look at.

The exception is corpus-wide statistics queries. But these will not be done in interactive time anyway, and will not be done very often. Plus, since these do not typically run all in memory, these are disk bound. And when things are disk bound, size matters. Reading extra entailment on the way is just a performance penalty.

Enough talk. Time for an experiment. We take the Yahoo and Falcon web crawls from the Billion Triples Challenge set, and do two things with the FOAF data in them:

Resolve identity at insert time. We remove duplicate person URIs, and give the single URI all the properties of all the duplicate URIs. We expect these to be most often repeats. If a person references another person, we normalize this reference to go to the single URI of the referenced person.
Give every duplicate URI of a person all the properties of all the duplicates. If these are the same value, the data should not get much bigger, or so we think.

For the experiment, we will consider two people the same if they have the same foaf:name and are both instances of foaf:Person. This gets some extra hits but should not be statistically significant.

The following is a commented SQL script performing the smoosh. We play with internal IDs of things, thus some of these operations cannot be done in SPARQL alone. We use SPARQL where possible for readability. As the documentation states, iri_to_id converts from the qualified name of an IRI to its ID and id_to_iri does the reverse.

We count the triples that enter into the smoosh:

-- the name is an existence because else we'd get several times more due to 
-- the names occurring in many graphs 

sparql 
   SELECT COUNT(*) 
    WHERE { { SELECT DISTINCT ?person 
               WHERE { ?person a foaf:Person }
            } . 
            FILTER ( bif:exists ( SELECT (1) 
                                   WHERE { ?person foaf:name ?nn } 
                                )
                       ) . 
            ?person ?p ?o
          };

-- We get 3284674

We make a few tables for intermediate results.

-- For each distinct name, gather the properties and objects from 
-- all subjects with this name 

CREATE TABLE name_prop 
   ( np_name  ANY, 
     np_p     IRI_ID_8, 
     np_o     ANY, 
     PRIMARY KEY ( np_name, 
                   np_p, 
                   np_o
                 )
   );
ALTER INDEX name_prop 
   ON name_prop 
   PARTITION ( np_name VARCHAR (-1, 0hexffff) );

-- Map from name to canonical IRI used for the name 

CREATE TABLE name_iri ( ni_name  ANY PRIMARY KEY, 
                        ni_s     IRI_ID_8
                      );
ALTER INDEX name_iri 
   ON name_iri 
   PARTITION ( ni_name VARCHAR (-1, 0hexffff) );

-- Map from person IRI to canonical person IRI

CREATE TABLE pref_iri 
   ( i     IRI_ID_8, 
     pref  IRI_ID_8, 
     PRIMARY KEY ( i )
   );
ALTER INDEX pref_iri 
   ON pref_iri 
   PARTITION ( i INT (0hexffff00) );

-- a table for the materialization where all aliases get all properties of every other 

CREATE TABLE smoosh_ct 
   ( s  IRI_ID_8, 
     p  IRI_ID_8, 
     o  ANY, 
     PRIMARY KEY ( s, 
                   p, 
                   o
                 ) 
   );
ALTER INDEX smoosh_ct 
   ON smoosh_ct 
   PARTITION ( s INT (0hexffff00) );

-- disable transaction log and enable row auto-commit.  This is necessary, otherwise 
-- bulk operations are done transactionally and they will run out of rollback space.

LOG_ENABLE (2);

-- Gather all the properties of all persons with a name under that name.  
-- INSERT SOFT means that duplicates are ignored 

INSERT SOFT name_prop 
   SELECT "n", "p", "o" 
   FROM ( sparql 
          DEFINE output:valmode "LONG" 
          SELECT ?n ?p ?o 
          WHERE { ?x a foaf:Person . 
                 ?x foaf:name ?n . 
                 ?x ?p ?o
               }
        ) xx ;

-- Now choose for each name the canonical IRI 

INSERT INTO name_iri 
   SELECT np_name, 
          ( SELECT MIN (s) 
              FROM rdf_quad 
             WHERE o = np_name 
                   AND p = IRI_TO_ID ('http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name')
          ) AS mini 
     FROM name_prop 
    WHERE np_p = IRI_TO_ID ('http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name') ;

-- For each person IRI, map to the canonical IRI of that person 

INSERT SOFT pref_iri (i, pref) 
   SELECT s, 
          ni_s 
     FROM name_iri, 
          rdf_quad 
    WHERE o = ni_name 
          AND p = IRI_TO_ID ('http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name') ;

-- Make a graph where all persons have one iri with all the properties of all aliases 
-- and where person-to-person refs are canonicalized

INSERT SOFT rdf_quad (g,s,p,o) 
   SELECT IRI_TO_ID ('psmoosh'), 
          ni_s, 
          np_p, 
 COALESCE ( ( SELECT pref 
              FROM pref_iri 
              WHERE i = np_o
            ), 
            np_o 
          )
     FROM name_prop, 
          name_iri 
    WHERE ni_name = np_name 
   OPTION ( loop, quietcast ) ;

-- A little explanation:  The properties of names are copied into rdf_quad with the name 
-- replaced with its canonical IRI.  If the object has a canonical IRI, this is used as 
-- the object, else the object is unmodified.  This is the COALESCE with the sub-query.

-- This takes a little time.  To check on the progress, take another connection to the 
-- server and do 

STATUS ('cluster');

-- It will return something like 
-- Cluster 4 nodes, 35 s. 108 m/s 1001 KB/s  75% cpu 186%  read 12% clw threads 5r 0w 0i 
-- buffers 549481 253929 d 8 w 0 pfs

-- Now finalize the state; this makes it permanent.  Else the work will be lost on server 
-- failure, since there was no transaction log 

CL_EXEC ('checkpoint');

-- See what we got

sparql 
   SELECT COUNT (*) 
     FROM <psmoosh> 
     WHERE {?s ?p ?o};

-- This is 2253102

-- Now make the copy where all have the properties of all synonyms.  This takes so much 
-- space we do not insert it as RDF quads, but make a special table for it so that we can 
-- run some statistics.  This saves time.

INSERT SOFT smoosh_ct (s, p, o)  
   SELECT s, np_p, np_o 
     FROM name_prop, 
          rdf_quad 
    WHERE o = np_name 
          AND p = IRI_TO_ID ('http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name') ;

-- as above, INSERT SOFT so as to ignore duplicates 

SELECT COUNT (*) 
   FROM smoosh_ct;

-- This is  167360324

-- Find out where the bloat comes from 

SELECT TOP 20 COUNT (*), 
              ID_TO_IRI (p) 
   FROM smoosh_ct 
   GROUP BY p 
   ORDER BY 1 DESC;

The results are:

54728777          http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs
48543153          http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows
13930234          http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#seeAlso
12268512          http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/interest
11415867          http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/nick
6683963           http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/weblog
6650093           http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/depiction
4231946           http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox_sha1sum
4129629           http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage
1776555           http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/holdsAccount
1219525           http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/based_near
305522            http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
274965            http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name
155131            http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/dateOfBirth
153001            http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/img
111130            http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#ADR
52930             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/gender
48517             http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#subject
45697             http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
44860             http://purl.org/vocab/bio/0.1/olb

Now compare with the predicate distribution of the smoosh with identities canonicalized

sparql 
     SELECT COUNT (*) ?p 
       FROM <psmoosh> 
      WHERE { ?s ?p ?o } 
   GROUP BY ?p 
   ORDER BY 1 DESC 
      LIMIT 20;

Results are:

748311            http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows
548391            http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/interest
140531            http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#seeAlso
105273            http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
78497             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name
48099             http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#subject
45179             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/depiction
40229             http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment
38272             http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
37378             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/nick
37186             http://dbpedia.org/property/abstract
34003             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/img
26182             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage
23795             http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs
17651             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox_sha1sum
17430             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/dateOfBirth
15586             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/page
12869             http://dbpedia.org/property/reference
12497             http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/weblog
12329             http://blogs.yandex.ru/schema/foaf/school

We can drop the owl:sameAs triples from the count, so the bloat is a bit less by that but it still is tens of times larger than the canonicalized copy or the initial state.

Now, when we try using the psmoosh graph, we still get different results from the results with the original data. This is because foaf:knows relations to things with no foaf:name are not represented in the smoosh. The exist:

sparql 
SELECT COUNT (*) 
   WHERE { ?s foaf:knows ?thing . 
           FILTER ( !bif:exists ( SELECT (1) 
                                   WHERE { ?thing foaf:name ?nn }
                                )
                  ) 
         };

-- 1393940

So the smoosh graph is not an accurate rendition of the social network. It would have to be smooshed further to be that, since the data in the sample is quite irregular. But we do not go that far here.

Finally, we calculate the smoosh blow up factors. We do not include owl:sameAs triples in the counts.

select (167360324 - 54728777) / 3284674.0;
34.290022997716059

select 2229307 / 3284674.0;
= 0.678699621332284

So, to get a smoosh that is not really the equivalent of the original, either multiply the original triple count by 34 or 0.68, depending on whether synonyms are collapsed or not.

Making the smooshes does not take very long, some minutes for the small one. Inserting the big one would be longer, a couple of hours maybe. It was 33 minutes for filling the smoosh_ct table. The metrics were not with optimal tuning so the performance numbers just serve to show that smooshing takes time. Probably more time than allowable in an interactive situation, no matter how the process is optimized.

Virtuoso Anytime: No Query Is Too Complex (updated)

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:13:10 GMT

A persistent argument against the linked data web has been the cost, scalability, and vulnerability of SPARQL end points, should the linked data web gain serious mass and traffic.

As we are on the brink of hosting the whole DBpedia Linked Open Data cloud in Virtuoso Cluster, we have had to think of what we'll do if, for example, somebody decides to count all the triples in the set.

How can we encourage clever use of data, yet not die if somebody, whether through malice, lack of understanding, or simple bad luck, submits impossible queries?

Restricting the language is not the way; any language beyond text search can express queries that will take forever to execute. Also, just returning a timeout after the first second (or whatever arbitrary time period) leaves people in the dark and does not produce an impression of responsiveness. So we decided to allow arbitrary queries, and if a quota of time or resources is exceeded, we return partial results and indicate how much processing was done.

Here we are looking for the top 10 people whom people claim to know without being known in return, like this:

SQL> sparql 
SELECT ?celeb, 
       COUNT (*)
WHERE { ?claimant foaf:knows ?celeb .
        FILTER (!bif:exists ( SELECT (1) 
                              WHERE { ?celeb foaf:knows ?claimant }
                            )
               )
      } 
GROUP BY ?celeb 
ORDER BY DESC 2 
LIMIT 10;

celeb                                      callret-1
VARCHAR                                    VARCHAR
________________________________________   _________

http://twitter.com/BarackObama             252
http://twitter.com/brianshaler             183
http://twitter.com/newmediajim             101
http://twitter.com/HenryRollins            95
http://twitter.com/wilw                    81
http://twitter.com/stevegarfield           78
http://twitter.com/cote                    66
mailto:adam.westerski@deri.org             66
mailto:michal.zaremba@deri.org             66
http://twitter.com/dsifry                  65

*** Error S1TAT: [Virtuoso Driver][Virtuoso Server]RC...: Returning incomplete 
results, query interrupted by result timeout.  
Activity:      1R rnd      0R seq      0P disk  1.346KB /      3 messages

SQL> sparql 
SELECT ?celeb, 
       COUNT (*)
WHERE { ?claimant foaf:knows ?celeb .
        FILTER (!bif:exists ( SELECT (1) 
                              WHERE { ?celeb foaf:knows ?claimant }
                            )
               )
      } 
GROUP BY ?celeb 
ORDER BY DESC 2 
LIMIT 10;

celeb                                      callret-1
VARCHAR                                    VARCHAR
________________________________________   _________

http://twitter.com/JasonCalacanis          496
http://twitter.com/Twitterrific            466
http://twitter.com/ev                      442
http://twitter.com/BarackObama             356
http://twitter.com/laughingsquid           317
http://twitter.com/gruber                  294
http://twitter.com/chrispirillo            259
http://twitter.com/ambermacarthur          224
http://twitter.com/t                       219
http://twitter.com/johnedwards             188

*** Error S1TAT: [Virtuoso Driver][Virtuoso Server]RC...: Returning incomplete 
results, query interrupted by result timeout.  
Activity:    329R rnd   44.6KR seq    342P disk  638.4KB /     46 messages

The first query read all data from disk; the second run had the working set from the first and could read some more before time ran out, hence the results were better. But the response time was the same.

If one has a query that just loops over consecutive joins, like in basic SPARQL, interrupting the processing after a set time period is simple. But such queries are not very interesting. To give meaningful partial answers with nested aggregation and sub-queries requires some more tricks. The basic idea is to terminate the innermost active sub-query/aggregation at the first timeout, and extend the timeout a bit so that accumulated results get fed to the next aggregation, like from the GROUP BY to the ORDER BY. If this again times out, we continue with the next outer layer. This guarantees that results are delivered if there were any results found for which the query pattern is true. False results are not produced, except in cases where there is comparison with a count and the count is smaller than it would be with the full evaluation.

One can also use this as a basis for paid services. The cutoff does not have to be time; it can also be in other units, making it insensitive to concurrent usage and variations of working set.

This system will be deployed on our Billion Triples Challenge demo instance in a few days, after some more testing. When Virtuoso 6 ships, all LOD Cloud AMIs and OpenLink-hosted LOD Cloud SPARQL endpoints will have this enabled by default. (AMI users will be able to disable the feature, if desired.) The feature works with Virtuoso 6 in both single server and cluster deployment.

An Example of RDF Scalability

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:23:47 GMT

We hear it to exhaustion, where is RDF scalability? We have been suggesting for a while that this is a solved question. I will here give some concrete numbers to back this.

The scalability dream is to add hardware and get increased performance in proportion to the power the added component has when measured by itself. A corollary dream is to take scalability effects that are measured in a simple task and see them in a complex task.

Below we show how we do 3.3 million random triple lookups per second on two 8 core commodity servers producing complete results, joining across partitions. On a single 4 core server, the figure is about 1 million lookups per second. With a single thread, it is about 250K lookups per second. This is the good case. But even our worse case is quite decent.

We took a simple SPARQL query, counting how many people say they reciprocally know each other. In the Billion Triples Challenge data set, there are 25M foaf:knows quads of which 92K are reciprocal. Reciprocal here means that when x knows y in some graph, y knows x in the same or any other graph.

SELECT COUNT (*) 
WHERE { 
         ?p1  foaf:knows  ?p2  . 
         ?p2  foaf:knows  ?p1 
      }

There is no guarantee that the triple of x knows y is in the same partition as the triple y knows x. Thus the join is randomly distributed, n partitions to n partitions.

We left this out of the Billion Triples Challenge demo because this did not run fast enough for our liking. Since then, we have corrected this.

If run on a single thread, this query would be a loop over all the quads with a predicate of foaf:knows, and an inner loop looking for a quad with 3 of 4 fields given (SPO). If we have a partitioned situation, we have a loop over all the foaf:knows quads in each partition, and an inner lookup looking for the reciprocal foaf:knows quad in whatever partition it may be found.

We have implemented this with two different message patterns:

Centralized: One process reads all the foaf:knows quads from all processes. Every 50K quads, it sends a batch of reciprocal quad checks to each partition that could contain a reciprocal quad. Each partition keeps the count of found reciprocal quads, and these are gathered and added up at the end.
Symmetrical: Each process reads the foaf:knows quads in its partition, and sends a batch of checks to each process that could have the reciprocal foaf:knows quad every 50K quads. At the end, the counts are gathered from all partitions. There is some additional control traffic but we do not go into its details here.

Below is the result measured on 2 machines each with 2 x Xeon 5345 (quad core; total 8 cores), 16G RAM, and each machine running 6 Virtuoso instances. The interconnect is dual 1-Gbit ethernet. Numbers are with warm cache.

Centralized: 35,543 msec, 728,634 sequential + random lookups per second Cluster 12 nodes, 35 s. 1072 m/s 39,085 KB/s 316% cpu ... Symmetrical: 7706 msec, 3,360,740 sequential + random lookups per second Cluster 12 nodes, 7 s. 572 m/s 16,983 KB/s 1137% cpu ...

The second line is the summary from the cluster status report for the duration of the query. The interesting numbers are the KB/s and the %CPU. The former is the cross-sectional data transfer rate for intra-cluster communication; the latter is the consolidated CPU utilization, where a constantly-busy core counts for 100%. The point to note is that the symmetrical approach takes 4x less real time with under half the data transfer rate. Further, when using multiple machines, the speed of a single interface does not limit the overall throughput as it does in the centralized situation.

These figures represent the best and worst cases of distributed JOINing. If we have a straight sequence of JOINs, with single pattern optionals and existences and the order in which results are produced is not significant (i.e., there is aggregation, existence test, or ORDER BY), the symmetrical pattern is applicable. On the other hand, if there are multiple triple pattern optionals, complex sub-queries, DISTINCTs in the middle of the query, or results have to be produced in the order of an index, then the centralized approach must be used at least part of the time.

Also, if we must make transitive closures, which can be thought of as an extension of a DISTINCT in a subquery, we must pass the data through a single point before moving the bindings to the next JOIN in the sequence. This happens for example in resolving owl:sameAs at run time. However, the good news is that performance does not fall much below the centralized figure even when there are complex nested structures with intermediate transitive closures, DISTINCTs, complex existence tests, etc., that require passing all intermediate results through a central point. No matter the complexity, it is always possible to vector some tens-of-thousands of variable bindings into a single message exchange. And if there are not that many intermediate results, then single query execution time is not a problem anyhow.

For our sample query, we would get still more speed by using a partitioned hash join, filling the hash from the foaf:knows relations and then running the foaf:knows relations through the hash. If the hash size is right, a hash lookup is somewhat better than an index lookup. The problem is that when the hash join is not the right solution, it is an expensive mistake: the best case is good; the worst case is very bad. But if there is no index then hash join is better than nothing. One problem of hash joins is that they make temporary data structures which, if large, will skew the working set. One must be quite sure of the cardinality before it is safe to try a hash join. So we do not do hash joins with RDF, but we do use them sometimes with relational data.

These same methods apply to relational data just as well. This does not make generic RDF storage outperform an application-specific relational representation on the same platform, as the latter benefits from all the same optimizations, but in terms of sheer numbers, this makes RDF representation an option where it was not an option before. RDF is all about not needing to design the schema around the queries, and not needing to limit what joins with what else.

ISWC 2008: Billion Triples Challenge

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:52:11 GMT

We showed our billion triples demo at the ISWC 2008 poster session. Generally people liked what they saw, as we basically did what one always had wanted to do with SPARQL but never could. This means firstly full SQL parity, with sub-queries, aggregation, full text, etc. Beyond SQL, we have transitive sub-queries, owl:sameAs at run time, and other inference things, all on demand.

The live demo is at http://b3s.openlinksw.com/. This site is under development and may not be on all the time. We are taking it in the direction of hosting the whole LOD cloud. This is an evolving operation where we will continue showcasing how one can ask increasingly interesting questions from a growing online database, in the spirit of the billion triples charter.

In the words of Jim Hendler, we were not selected for the finale because this would have made the challenge a database shootout instead of a more research-oriented event. There is some point to this since if the event becomes like the TPC benchmarks, this will limit the entrance to full time database players. Anyway, we got a special mention in the intro of the challenge track.

The winner was Semaplorer, a federated SPARQL query system. There is some merit to this, as we ourselves are not convinced that centralization is always the right direction. As discussed in the DARQ Matter of Federation post, we have a notion of how to do this production-strength with our cluster engine, now also over wide area networks. We shall see.

Why Not Just Join?

The entries from Deri and LARKC (MaRVIN, "Massive RDF Versatile Inference Network") were doing materialization of inference results in a cluster environment. The thing they were not doing was joining across partitions. Thus, the data was partitioned on whatever criterion and then the data in each partition was further refined according to rules known to all partitions. Deri did not address joining further.

"Nature shall be the guide of the alchemist," goes the old adage. We can look at MaRVIN as an example of this dictum. Networks of people are low bandwidth, not nearly fully connected. Asking a colleague for information is expensive and subject to misunderstanding; asking another research group might never produce an answer.

Even looking at one individual, we have no reason to think that the human expert would do complete reasoning. Indeed, the brain is a sort of compute cluster, but it does not have flat latency point to point connectivity â some joins are fast; others are not even tried, for all we know.

A database running on a cluster is a sort of counter-example. A database with RDF workload will end up joining across partitions pretty much all of the time.

MaRVIN's approach to joining could be likened to a country dance: Boys get to take a whirl with different girls according to a complex pattern. For match-making, some matches are produced early but one never knows if the love of a lifetime might be just around the corner. Also, if the dancers are inexperienced, they will have little ability to evaluate how good a match they have with their partner. A few times around the dance floor are needed to get the hang of things.

The question is, at what point will it no longer be possible to join across the database? This depends on the interconnect latency. The higher the latency, the more useful the square-dancing approach becomes.

Another practical consideration is the fact that RDF reasoners are not usually built for distributed memory multiprocessors. If the reasoner must be a plug-in component, then it cannot be expected to be written for grids.

We can think of a product safety use case: Find cosmetics that have ingredients that are considered toxic in the amounts they are present in each product. This can be done as a database query with some transitive operations, like running through a cosmetics taxonomy and a poisons database. If the business logic deciding whether the presence of an ingredient in the product is a health hazard is very complex, we can get a lot of joins.

The MaRVIN way would be to set up a ball where each lipstick and eyeliner dances with every poison and then see if matches are made. The matching logic could be arbitrarily complex since it would run locally. Of course here, some domain knowledge is needed in order to set up the processing so that each product and poison carry all the associated information with them. Dancing with half a partner can bias one's perceptions: Again, it is like nature, sometimes not all cards are on the table.

It would seem that there is some setup involved before answering a question: Composition of partitions, frequency of result exchange, etc. How critical the domain knowledge implicit in the setup is for the quality of results is an interesting question.

The question is, at what point will a cluster using distributed database operations for inference become impractical? Of course, it is impractical from the get-go if the reasoners and query processors are not made for this. But what if they are? We are presently evaluating different message patterns for joining between partitions. The baseline is some 250,000 random single-triple lookups per second per core. Using a cluster increases this throughput. The increase is more or less linear depending on whether all intermediate results pass via one coordinating node (worst case) or whether each node can decide which other node will do the next join step for each result (best case). For example, a DISTINCT operation requires that data passes through a single place but JOINing and aggregation in general do not.

We will still publish numbers during this November.

ISWC 2008: The Scalable Knowledge Systems Workshop

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:16:47 GMT

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:

mapping relational to RDF, where possible, is faster than triple storage; and
the equivalent relational solution can be some 10x faster than the pure triples representation.

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 â 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.

Bridging the 10x Gap?

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.

Scale, Where Next?

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.

Virtuoso - Are We Too Clever for Our Own Good? (updated)

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:15:35 GMT

"Physician, heal thyself," it is said. We profess to say what the messaging of the semantic web ought to be, but is our own perfect?

I will here engage in some critical introspection as well as amplify on some answers given to Virtuoso-related questions in recent times.

I use some conversations from the Vienna Linked Data Practitioners meeting as a starting point. These views are mine and are limited to the Virtuoso server. These do not apply to the ODS (OpenLink Data Spaces) applications line, OAT (OpenLink Ajax Toolkit), or ODE (OpenLink Data Explorer).

"It is not always clear what the main thrust is, we get the impression that you are spread too thin," said SÃ¶ren Auer.

Well, personally, I am all for core competence. This is why I do not participate in all the online conversations and groups as much as I could, for example. Time and energy are critical resources and must be invested where they make a difference. In this case, the real core competence is running in the database race. This in itself, come to think of it, is a pretty broad concept.

This is why we put a lot of emphasis on Linked Data and the Data Web for now, as this is the emerging game. This is a deliberate choice, not an outside imperative or built-in limitation. More specifically, this means exposing any pre-existing relational data as linked data plus being the definitive RDF store.

We can do this because we own our database and SQL and data access middleware and have a history of connecting to any RDBMS out there.

The principal message we have been hearing from the RDF field is the call for scale of triple storage. This is even louder than the call for relational mapping. We believe that in time mapping will exceed triple storage as such, once we get some real production strength mappings deployed, enough to outperform RDF warehousing.

There are also RDF middleware things like RDF-ization and demand-driven web harvesting (i.e, the so-called Sponger). These are SPARQL options, thus accessed via standard interfaces. We have little desire to create our own languages or APIs, or to tell people how to program. This is why we recently introduced Sesame- and Jena-compatible APIs to our RDF store. From what we hear, these work. On the other hand, we do not hesitate to move beyond the standards when there is obvious value or necessity. This is why we brought SPARQL up to and beyond SQL expressivity. It is not a case of E3 (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish).

Now, this message could be better reflected in our material on the web. This blog is a rather informal step in this direction; more is to come. For now we concentrate on delivering.

The conventional communications wisdom is to split the message by target audience. For this, we should split the RDF, relational, and web services messages from each other. We believe that a challenger, like the semantic web technology stack, must have a compelling message to tell for it to be interesting. This is not a question of research prototypes. The new technology cannot lack something the installed technology takes for granted.

This is why we do not tend to show things like how to insert and query a few triples: No business out there will insert and query triples for the sake of triples. There must be a more compelling story â for example, turning the whole world into a database. This is why our examples start with things like turning the TPC-H database into RDF, queries and all. Anything less is not interesting. Why would an enterprise that has business intelligence and integration issues way more complex than the rather stereotypical TPC-H even look at a technology that pretends to be all for integration and all for expressivity of queries, yet cannot answer the first question of the entry exam?

The world out there is complex. But maybe we ought to make some simple tutorials? So, as a call to the people out there, tell us what a good tutorial would be. The question is more about figuring out what is out there and adapting these and making a sort of compatibility list. Jena and Sesame stuff ought to run as is. We could offer a webinar to all the data web luminaries showing how to promote the data web message with Virtuoso. After all, why not show it on the best platform?

"You are arrogant. When I read your papers or documentation, the impression I get is that you say you are smart and the reader is stupid."

We should answer in multiple parts.

For general collateral, like web sites and documentation:

The web site gives a confused product image. For the Virtuoso product, we should divide at the top into

Data web and RDF - Host linked data, expose relational assets as linked data;
Relational Database - Full function, high performance, open source, Federated/Virtual Relational DBMS, expose heterogeneous RDB assets through one point of contact for integration;
Web Services - access all the above over standard protocols, dynamic web pages, web hosting.

For each point, one simple statement. We all know what the above things mean?

Then we add a new point about scalability that impacts all the above, namely the Virtuoso version 6 Cluster, meaning that you can do all these things at 10 to 1000 times the scale. This means this much more data or in some cases this much more requests per second. This too is clear.

Far as I am concerned, hosting Java or .NET does not have to be on the front page. Also, we have no great interest in going against Apache when it comes to a web server only situation. The fact that we have a web listener is important for some things but our claim to fame does not rest on this.

Then for documentation and training materials: The documentation should be better. Specifically it should have more of a how-to dimension since nobody reads the whole thing anyhow. About online tutorials, the order of presentation should be different. They do not really reflect what is important at the present moment either.

Now for conference papers: Since taking the data web as a focus area, we have submitted some papers and had some rejected because these do not have enough references and do not explain what is obvious to ourselves.

I think that the communications failure in this case is that we want to talk about end to end solutions and the reviewers expect research. For us, the solution is interesting and exists only if there is an adequate functionality mix for addressing a specific use case. This is why we do not make a paper about query cost model alone because the cost model, while indispensable, is a thing that is taken for granted where we come from. So we mention RDF adaptations to cost model, as these are important to the whole but do not find these to be the justification for a whole paper. If we made papers on this basis, we would have to make five times as many. Maybe we ought to.

"Virtuoso is very big and very difficult"

One thing that is not obvious from the Virtuoso packaging is that the minimum installation is an executable under 10MB and a config file. Two files.

This gives you SQL and SPARQL out of the box. Adding ODBC and JDBC clients is as simple as it gets. After this, there is basic database functionality. Tuning is a matter of a few parameters that are explained on this blog and elsewhere. Also, the full scale installation is available as an Amazon EC2 image, so no installation required.

Now for the difficult side:

Use SQL and SPARQL; use stored procedures whenever there is server side business logic. For some time critical web pages, use VSP. Do not use VSPX. Otherwise, use whatever you are used to â PHP or Java or anything else. For web services, simple is best. Stick to basics. "The engineer is one who can invent a simple thing." Use SQL statements rather than admin UI.

Know that you can start a server with no database file and you get an initial database with nothing extra. The demo database, the way it is produced by installers is cluttered.

We should put this into a couple of use case oriented how-tos.

Also, we should create a network of "friendly local virtuoso geeks" for providing basic training and services so we do not have to explain these things all the time. To all you data-web-ers out there â please sign up and we will provide instructions, etc. Contact YrjÃ¤nÃ¤ Rankka (ghard[at-sign]openlinksw.com), or go through the mailing lists; do not contact me directly.

"OK, we understand that you may be good at the large end of the spectrum but how do you reconcile this with the lightweight or embedded end, like the semantic desktop?"

Now, what is good for one end is usually good for the other. Namely, a database, no matter the scale, needs to have space efficient storage, fast index lookup, and correct query plans. Then there are things that occur only at the high-end, like clustering, but these are separate things. For embedding, the initial memory footprint needs to be small. With Virtuoso, this is accomplished by leaving out some 200 built-in tables and 100,000 lines of SQL procedures that are normally in by default, supporting things such as DAV and diverse other protocols. After all, if SPARQL is all one wants these are not needed.

If one really wants to do one's server logic (like web listener and thread dispatching) oneself, this is not impossible but requires some advice from us. On the other hand, if one wants to have logic for security close to the data, then using stored procedures is recommended; these execute right next to the data, and support inline SPARQL and SQL. Depending on the license status of the other code, some special licensing arrangements may apply.

We are talking about such things with different parties at present.

"How webby are you? What is webby?"

"Webby means distributed, heterogeneous, open; not monolithic consolidation of everything."

We are philosophically webby. We come from open standards; we are after all called OpenLink; our history consists of connecting things. We believe in choice â the user should be able to pick the best of breed for components and have them work together. We cannot and do not wish to force replacement of existing assets. Transforming data on the fly and connecting systems, leaving data where it originally resides, is the first preference. For the data web, the first preference is a federation of independent SPARQL end points. When there is harvesting, we prefer to do it on demand, as with our Sponger. With the immense amount of data out there we believe in finding what is relevant when it is relevant, preferably close at hand, leveraging things like social networks. With a data web, many things which are now siloized, such as marketplaces and social networks, will return to the open.

Google-style crawling of everything becomes less practical if one needs to run complex ad hoc queries against the mass of data. For these types of scenarios, if one needs to warehouse, the data cloud will offer solutions where one pays for database on demand. While we believe in loosely coupled federation where possible, we have serious work on the scalability side for the data center and the compute-on-demand cloud.

"How does OpenLink see the next five years unfolding?"

Personally, I think we have the basics for the birth of a new inflection in the knowledge economy. The URI is the unit of exchange; its value and competitive edge lie in the data it links you with. A name without context is worth little, but as a name gets more use, more information can be found through that name. This is anything from financial statistics, to legal precedents, to news reporting or government data. Right now, if the SEC just added one line of markup to the XBRL template, this would instantaneously make all SEC-mandated reporting into linked data via GRDDL.

The URI is a carrier of brand. An information brand gets traffic and references, and this can be monetized in diverse ways. The key word is context. Information overload is here to stay, and only better context offers the needed increase in productivity to stay ahead of the flood.

Semantic technologies on the whole can help with this. Why these should be semantic web or data web technologies as opposed to just semantic is the linked data value proposition. Even smart islands are still islands. Agility, scale, and scope, depend on the possibility of combining things. Therefore common terminologies and dereferenceability and discoverability are important. Without these, we are at best dealing with closed systems even if they were smart. The expert systems of the 1980s are a case in point.

Ever since the .com era, the URL has been a brand. Now it becomes a URI. Thus, entirely hiding the URI from the user experience is not always desirable. The URI is a sort of handle on the provenance and where more can be found; besides, people are already used to these.

With linked data, information value-add products become easy to build and deploy. They can be basically just canned SPARQL queries combining data in a useful and insightful manner. And where there is traffic there can be monetization, whether by advertizing, subscription, or other means. Such possibilities are a natural adjunct to the blogosphere. To publish analysis, one no longer needs to be a think tank or media company. We could call this scenario the birth of a meshup economy.

For OpenLink itself, this is our roadmap. The immediate future is about getting our high end offerings like clustered RDF storage generally available, both on the cloud and for private data centers. Ourselves, we will offer the whole Linked Open Data cloud as a database. The single feature to come in version 2 of this is fully automatic partitioning and repartitioning for on-demand scale; now, you have to choose how many partitions you have.

This makes some things possible that were hard thus far.

On the mapping front, we go for real-scale data integration scenarios where we can show that SPARQL can unify terms and concepts across databases, yet bring no added cost for complex queries. Enterprises can use their existing warehouses and have an added level of abstraction, the possibility of cross systems interlinking, the advantages of using the same taxonomies and ontologies across systems, and so forth.

Then there will be developments in the direction of smarter web harvesting on demand with the Virtuoso Sponger, and federation of heterogeneous SPARQL end points. The federation is not so unlike clustering, except the time scales are 2 orders of magnitude longer. The work on SPARQL end point statistics and data set description and discovery is a good development in the community.

Then there will be NLP integration, as exemplified by the Open Calais linked data wrapper and more.

Can we pull this off or is this being spread too thin? We know from experience that all this can be accomplished. Scale is already here; we show it with the billion triples set. Mapping is here; we showed it last in the Berlin Benchmark. We will also show some TPC-H results after we get a little quiet after the ISWC event. Then there is ongoing maintenance but with this we have shown a steady turnaround and quick time to fix for pretty much anything.

State of the Semantic Web, Part 1 - Sociology, Business, and Messaging (update 2)

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:19:03 GMT

I was in Vienna for the Linked Data Practitioners gathering this week. Danny Ayers asked me if I would blog about the State of the Semantic Web or write the This Week's Semantic Web column. I don't have the time to cover all that may have happened during the past week but I will editorialize about the questions that again were raised in Vienna. How these things relate to Virtuoso will be covered separately. This is about the overarching questions of the times, not the finer points of geek craft.

SÃ¶ren Auer asked me to say a few things about relational to RDF mapping. I will cite some highlights from this, as they pertain to the general scene. There was an "open hacking" session Wednesday night featuring lightning talks. I will use some of these too as a starting point.

The messaging?

The SWEO (Semantic Web Education and Outreach) interest group of the W3C spent some time looking for an elevator pitch for the Semantic Web. It became "Data Unleashed." Why not? Let's give this some context.

So, if we are holding a Semantic Web 101 session, where should we begin? I hazard to guess that we should not begin by writing a FOAF file in Turtle by hand, as this is one thing that is not likely to happen in the real world.

Of course, the social aspect of the Data Web is the most immediately engaging, so a demo might be to go make an account with myopenlink.net and see that after one has entered the data one normally enters for any social network, one has become a Data Web citizen. This means that one can be found, just like this, with a query against the set of data spaces hosted on the system. Then we just need a few pages that repurpose this data and relate it to other data. We show some samples of queries like this in our Billion Triples Challenge demo. We will make a webcast about this to make it all clearer.

Behold: The Data Web is about the world becoming a database; writing SPARQL queries or triples is incidental. You will write FOAF files by hand just as little as you now write SQL insert statements for filling in your account information on Myspace.

Every time there is a major shift in technology, this shift needs to be motivated by addressing a new class of problem. This means doing something that could not be done before. The last time this happened was when the relational database became the dominant IT technology. At that time, the questions involved putting the enterprise in the database and building a cluster of Line Of Business (LOB) applications around the database. The argument for the RDBMS was that you did not have to constrain the set of queries that might later be made, when designing the database. In other words, it was making things more ad hoc. This was opposed then on grounds of being less efficient than the hierarchical and network databases which the relational eventually replaced.

Today, the point of the Data Web is that you do not have to constrain what your data can join or integrate with, when you design your database. The counter-argument is that this is slow and geeky and not scalable. See the similarity?

A difference is that we are not specifically aiming at replacing the RDBMS. In fact, if you know exactly what you will query and have a well defined workload, a relational representation optimized for the workload will give you about 10x the performance of the equivalent RDF warehouse. OLTP remains a relational-only domain.

However, when we are talking about doing queries and analytics against the Web, or even against more than a handful of relational systems, the things which make RDBMS good become problematic.

What is the business value of this?

The most reliable of human drives is the drive to make oneself known. This drives all, from any social scene to business communications to politics. Today, when you want to proclaim you exist, you do so first on the Web. The Web did not become the prevalent media because business loved it for its own sake, it became prevalent because business could not afford not to assert their presence there. If anything, the Web eroded the communications dominance of a lot of players, which was not welcome but still had to be dealt with, by embracing the Web.

Today, in a world driven by data, the Data Web will be catalyzed by similar factors: If your data is not there, you will not figure in query results. Search engines will play some role there but also many social applications will have reports that are driven by published data. Also consider any e-commerce, any marketplace, and so forth. The Data Portability movement is a case in point: Users want to own their own content; silo operators want to capitalize on holding it. Right now, we see these things in silos; the Data Web will create bridges between these, and what is now in silo data centers will be increasingly available on an ad hoc basis with Open Data.

Again, we see a movement from the specialized to the generic: What LinkedIn does in its data center can be done with ad hoc queries with linked open data. Of course, LinkedIn does these things somewhat more efficiently because their system is built just for this task, but the linked data approach has the built-in readiness to join with everything else at almost no cost, without making a new data warehouse for each new business question.

We could call this the sociological aspect of the thing. Getting to more concrete business, we see an economy that, we could say, without being alarmists, is confronted with some issues. Well, generally when times are bad, this results in consolidation of property and power. Businesses fail and get split up and sold off in pieces, government adds controls and regulations and so forth. This means ad hoc data integration, as control without data is just pretense. If times are lean, this also means that there is little readiness to do wholesale replacement of systems, which will take years before producing anything. So we must play with what there is and make it deliver, in ways and conditions that were not necessarily anticipated. The agility of the Data Web, if correctly understood, can be of great benefit there, especially on the reporting and business intelligence side. Specifically mapping line-of-business systems into RDF on the fly will help with integration, making the specialized warehouse the slower and more expensive alternative. But this too is needed at times.

But for the RDF community to be taken seriously there, the messaging must be geared in this direction. Writing FOAF files by hand is not where you begin the pitch. Well, what is more natural then having a global, queriable information space, when you have a global information driven economy?

The Data Web is about making this happen. First with doing this in published generally available data; next with the enterprises having their private data for their own use but still linking toward the outside, even though private data stays private: You can still use standard terms and taxonomies, where they apply, when talking of proprietary information.

But let's get back to more specific issues

At the lightning talks in Vienna, one participant said, "Man's enemy is not the lion that eats men, it's his own brother. Semantic Web's enemy is the XML Web services stack that ate its lunch." There is some truth to the first part. The second part deserves some comment. The Web services stack is about transactions. When you have a fixed, often repeating task, it is a natural thing to make this a Web service. Even though SOA is not really prevalent in enterprise IT, it has value in things like managing supply-chain logistics with partners, etc. Lots of standard messages with unambiguous meaning. To make a parallel with the database world: first there was OLTP; then there was business intelligence. Of course, you must first have the transactions, to have something to analyze.

SOA is for the transactions; the Data Web is for integration, analysis, and discovery. It is the ad hoc component of the real time enterprise, if you will. It is not a competitor against a transaction oriented SOA. In fact, RDF has no special genius for transactions. Another mistake that often gets made is stretching things beyond their natural niche. Doing transactions in RDF is this sort of over-stretching without real benefit.

"I made an ontology and it really did solve a problem. How do I convince the enterprise people, the MBA who says it's too complex, the developer who says it is not what he's used to, and so on?"

This is an education question. One of the findings of SWEO's enterprise survey was that there was awareness that difficult problems existed. There were and are corporate ontologies and taxonomies, diversely implemented. Some of these needs are recognized. RDF based technologies offer to make these more open standards based. open standards have proven economical in the past. What we also hear is that major enterprises do not even know what their information and human resources assets are: Experts can't be found even when they are in the next department, or reports and analysis gets buried in wikis, spreadsheets, and emails.

Just as when SQL took off, we need vendors to do workshops on getting started with a technology. The affair in Vienna was a step in this direction. Another type of event specially focusing on vertical problems and their Data Web solutions is a next step. For example, one could do a workshop on integrating supply chain information with Data Web technologies. Or one on making enterprise knowledge bases from HR, CRM, office automation, wikis, etc. The good thing is that all these things are additions to, not replacements of, the existing mission-critical infrastructure. And better use of what you already have ought to be the theme of the day.

Virtuoso Cluster Paper Update

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:38:14 GMT

An updated version of the paper about Virtuoso Cluster is available at 2008webscale_rdf.pdf

Virtuoso Update, Billion Triples and Outlook

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:31:17 GMT

I will say a few things about what we have been doing and where we can go.

Firstly, we have a fairly scalable platform with Virtuoso 6 Cluster. It was most recently tested with the workload discussed in the previous Billion Triples post.

There is an updated version of the paper about this. This will be presented at the web scale workshop of ISWC 2008 in Karlsruhe.

Right now, we are polishing some things in Virtuoso 6 -- some optimizations for smarter balancing of interconnect traffic over multiple network interfaces, and some more SQL optimizations specific to RDF. The must-have basics, like parallel running of sub-queries and aggregates, and all-around unrolling of loops of every kind into large partitioned batches, is all there and proven to work.

We spent a lot of time around the Berlin SPARQL Benchmark story, so we got to the more advanced stuff like the Billion Triples Challenge rather late. We did along the way also run BSBM with an Oracle back-end, with Virtuoso mapping SPARQL to SQL. This merits its own analysis in the near future. This will be the basic how-to of mapping OLTP systems to RDF. Depending on the case, one can use this for lookups in real-time or ETL.

RDF will deliver value in complex situations. An example of a complex relational mapping use case came from Ordnance Survey, presented at the RDB2RDF XG. Examples of complex warehouses include the Neurocommons database, the Billion Triples Challenge, and the Garlik DataPatrol.

In comparison, the Berlin workload is really simple and one where RDF is not at its best, as amply discussed on the Linked Data forum. BSBM's primary value is as a demonstrator for the basic mapping tasks that will be repeated over and over for pretty much any online system when presence on the data web becomes as indispensable as presence on the HTML web.

I will now talk about the complex warehouse/web-harvesting side. I will come to the mapping in another post.

Now, all the things shown in the Billion Triples post can be done with a relational system specially built for each purpose. Since we are a general purpose RDBMS, we use this capability where it makes sense. For example, storing statistics about which tags or interests occur with which other tags or interests as RDF blank nodes makes no sense. We do not even make the experiment; we know ahead of time that the result is at least an order of magnitude in favor of the relational row-oriented solution in both space and time.

Whenever there is a data structure specially made for answering one specific question, like joint occurrence of tags, RDB and mapping is the way to go. With Virtuoso, this can fully-well coexist with physical triples, and can still be accessed in SPARQL and mixed with triples. This is territory that we have not extensively covered yet, but we will be giving some examples about this later.

The real value of RDF is in agility. When there is no time to design and load a new warehouse for every new question, RDF is unparalleled. Also SPARQL, once it has the necessary extensions of aggregating and sub-queries, is nicer than SQL, especially when we have sub-classes and sub-properties, transitivity, and "same as" enabled. These things have some run time cost and if there is a report one is hitting absolutely all the time, then chances are that resolving terms and identity at load-time and using materialized views in SQL is the reasonable thing. If one is inventing a new report every time, then RDF has a lot more convenience and flexibility.

We are just beginning to explore what we can do with data sets such as the online conversation space, linked data, and the open ontologies of UMBEL and OpenCyc. It is safe to say that we can run with real world scale without loss of query expressivity. There is an incremental cost for performance but this is not prohibitive. Serving the whole billion triples set from memory would cost about $32K in hardware. $8K will do if one can wait for disk part of the time. One can use these numbers as a basis for costing larger systems. For online search applications, one will note that running the indexes pretty much from memory is necessary for flat response time. For back office analytics this is not necessarily as critical. It all depends on the use case.

We expect to be able to combine geography, social proximity, subject matter, and named entities, with hierarchical taxonomies and traditional full text, and to present this through a simple user interface.

We expect to do this with online response times if we have a limited set of starting points and do not navigate more than 2 or 3 steps from each starting point. An example would be to have a full text pattern and news group, and get the cloud of interests from the authors of matching posts. Another would be to make a faceted view of the properties of the 1000 people most closely connected to one person.

Queries like finding the fastest online responders to questions about romance across the global board-scape, or finding the person who initiates the most long running conversations about crime, take a bit longer but are entirely possible.

The genius of RDF is to be able to do these things within a general purpose database, ad hoc, in a single query language, mostly without materializing intermediate results. Any of these things could be done with arbitrary efficiency in a custom built system. But what is special now is that the cost of access to this type of information and far beyond drops dramatically as we can do these things in a far less labor intensive way, with a general purpose system, with no redesigning and reloading of warehouses at every turn. The query becomes a commodity.

Still, one must know what to ask. In this respect, the self-describing nature of RDF is unmatched. A query like list the top 10 attributes with the most distinct values for all persons cannot be done in SQL. SQL simply does not allow the columns to be variable.

Further, we can accept queries as text, the way people are used to supplying them, and use structure for drill-down or result-relevance, and also recognize named entities and subject matter concepts in query text. Very simple NLP will go a long way towards keeping SPARQL out of the user experience.

The other way of keeping query complexity hidden is to publish hand-written SPARQL as parameter-fed canned reports.

Between now and ISWC 2008, the last week of October, we will put out demos showing some of these things. Stay tuned.

OpenLink Software's Virtuoso Submission to the Billion Triples Challenge

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:39:26 GMT

Introduction

We use Virtuoso 6 Cluster Edition to demonstrate the following:

Text and structured information based lookups
Analytics queries
Analysis of co-occurrence of features like interests and tags.
Dealing with identity of multiple IRI's (owl:sameAs)

The demo is based on a set of canned SPARQL queries that can be invoked using the OpenLink Data Explorer (ODE) Firefox extension.

The demo queries can also be run directly against the SPARQL end point.

The demo is being worked on at the time of submission and may be shown online by appointment.

Automatic annotation of the data based on named entity extraction is being worked on at the time of this submission. By the time of ISWC 2008 the set of sample queries will be enhanced with queries based on extracted named entities and their relationships in the UMBEL and Open CYC ontologies.

Also examples involving owl:sameAs are being added, likewise with similarity metrics and search hit scores.

The Data

The database consists of the billion triples data sets and some additions like Umbel. Also the Freebase extract is newer than the challenge original.

The triple count is 1115 million.

In the case of web harvested resources, the data is loaded in one graph per resource.

In the case of larger data sets like Dbpedia or the US census, all triples of the provenance share a data set specific graph.

All string literals are additionally indexed in a full text index. No stop words are used.

Most queries do not specify a graph. Thus they are evaluated against the union of all the graphs in the database. The indexing scheme is SPOG, GPOS, POGS, OPGS. All indices ending in S are bitmap indices.

The Queries

The demo uses Virtuoso SPARQL extensions in most queries. These extensions consist on one hand of well known SQL features like aggregation with grouping and existence and value subqueries and on the other of RDF specific features. The latter include run time RDFS and OWL inferencing support and backward chaining subclasses and transitivity.

Simple Lookups

sparql 
select ?s ?p (bif:search_excerpt (bif:vector ('semantic', 'web'), ?o)) 
where 
  {
    ?s ?p ?o . 
    filter (bif:contains (?o, "'semantic web'")) 
  } 
limit 10
;

This looks up triples with semantic web in the object and makes a search hit summary of the literal, highlighting the search terms.

sparql 
select ?tp count(*) 
where 
  { 
    ?s ?p2 ?o2 . 
    ?o2 a ?tp . 
    ?s foaf:nick ?o . 
    filter (bif:contains (?o, "plaid_skirt")) 
  } 
group by ?tp
order by desc 2
limit 40
;

This looks at what sorts of things are referenced by the properties of the foaf handle plaid_skirt.

What are these things called?

sparql 
select ?lbl count(*) 
where 
  { 
    ?s ?p2 ?o2 . 
    ?o2 rdfs:label ?lbl . 
    ?s foaf:nick ?o . 
    filter (bif:contains (?o, "plaid_skirt")) 
  } 
group by ?lbl
order by desc 2
;

Many of these things do not have a rdfs:label. Let us use a more general concept of lable which groups dc:title, foaf:name and other name-like properties together. The subproperties are resolved at run time, there is no materialization.

sparql 
define input:inference 'b3s'
select ?lbl count(*) 
where 
  { 
    ?s ?p2 ?o2 . 
    ?o2 b3s:label ?lbl . 
    ?s foaf:nick ?o . 
    filter (bif:contains (?o, "plaid_skirt")) 
  } 
group by ?lbl
order by desc 2
;

We can list sources by the topics they contain. Below we look for graphs that mention terrorist bombing.

sparql 
select ?g count(*) 
where 
  { 
    graph ?g 
      {
        ?s ?p ?o . 
        filter (bif:contains (?o, "'terrorist bombing'")) 
      }
  } 
group by ?g 
order by desc 2
;

Now some web 2.0 tagging of search results. The tag cloud of "computer"

sparql 
select ?lbl count (*) 
where 
  { 
    ?s ?p ?o . 
    ?o bif:contains "computer" . 
    ?s sioc:topic ?tg .
    optional 
      {
        ?tg rdfs:label ?lbl
      }
  }
group by ?lbl 
order by desc 2 
limit 40
;

This query will find the posters who talk the most about sex.

sparql 
select ?auth count (*) 
where 
  { 
    ?d dc:creator ?auth .
    ?d ?p ?o
    filter (bif:contains (?o, "sex")) 
  } 
group by ?auth
order by desc 2
;

Analytics

We look for people who are joined by having relatively uncommon interests but do not know each other.

sparql select ?i ?cnt ?n1 ?n2 ?p1 ?p2 
where 
  {
    {
      select ?i count (*) as ?cnt 
      where 
        { ?p foaf:interest ?i } 
      group by ?i
    }
    filter ( ?cnt > 1 && ?cnt < 10) .
    ?p1 foaf:interest ?i .
    ?p2 foaf:interest ?i .
    filter  (?p1 != ?p2 && 
             !bif:exists ((select (1) where {?p1 foaf:knows ?p2 })) && 
             !bif:exists ((select (1) where {?p2 foaf:knows ?p1 }))) .
    ?p1 foaf:nick ?n1 .
    ?p2 foaf:nick ?n2 .
  } 
order by ?cnt 
limit 50
;

The query takes a fairly long time, mostly spent counting the interested in 25M interest triples. It then takes people that share the interest and checks that neither claims to know the other. It then sorts the results rarest interest first. The query can be written more efficently but is here just to show that database-wide scans of the population are possible ad hoc.

Now we go to SQL to make a tag co-occurrence matrix. This can be used for showing a Technorati-style related tags line at the bottom of a search result page. This showcases the use of SQL together with SPARQL. The half-matrix of tags t1, t2 with the co-occurrence count at the intersection is much more efficiently done in SQL, specially since it gets updated as the data changes. This is an example of materialized intermediate results based on warehoused RDF.

create table 
tag_count (tcn_tag iri_id_8, 
           tcn_count int, 
           primary key (tcn_tag));
           
alter index 
tag_count on tag_count partition (tcn_tag int (0hexffff00));

create table 
tag_coincidence (tc_t1 iri_id_8, 
                 tc_t2 iri_id_8, 
                 tc_count int, 
                 tc_t1_count int, 
                 tc_t2_count int, 
                 primary key  (tc_t1, tc_t2))

alter index 
tag_coincidence on tag_coincidence partition (tc_t1 int (0hexffff00));

create index 
tc2 on tag_coincidence (tc_t2, tc_t1) partition (tc_t2 int (0hexffff00));

How many times each topic is mentioned?

insert into tag_count 
  select * 
    from (sparql define output:valmode "LONG" 
                 select ?t count (*) as ?cnt 
                 where 
                   {
                     ?s sioc:topic ?t
                   } 
                 group by ?t) 
    xx option (quietcast);

Take all t1, t2 where t1 and t2 are tags of the same subject, store only the permutation where the internal id of t1 < that of t2.

insert into tag_coincidence  (tc_t1, tc_t2, tc_count)
  select "t1", "t2", cnt 
    from 
      (select  "t1", "t2", count (*) as cnt 
         from 
           (sparql define output:valmode "LONG"
                   select ?t1 ?t2 
                     where 
                       {
                         ?s sioc:topic ?t1 . 
                         ?s sioc:topic ?t2 
                       }) tags
         where "t1" < "t2" 
         group by "t1", "t2") xx
    where isiri_id ("t1") and 
          isiri_id ("t2") 
    option (quietcast);

Now put the individual occurrence counts into the same table with the co-occurrence. This denormalization makes the related tags lookup faster.

update tag_coincidence 
  set tc_t1_count = (select tcn_count from tag_count where tcn_tag = tc_t1),
      tc_t2_count = (select tcn_count from tag_count where tcn_tag = tc_t2);

Now each tag_coincidence row has the joint occurrence count and individual occurrence counts. A single select will return a Technorati-style related tags listing.

To show the URI's of the tags:

select top 10 id_to_iri (tc_T1), id_to_iri (tc_t2), tc_count 
  from tag_coincidence 
  order by tc_count desc;

Social Networks

We look at what interests people have

sparql 
select ?o ?cnt  
where 
  {
    {
      select ?o count (*) as ?cnt 
        where 
          {
            ?s foaf:interest ?o
          } 
        group by ?o
    } 
    filter (?cnt > 100) 
  } 
order by desc 2 
limit 100
;

Now the same for the Harry Potter fans

sparql 
select ?i2 count (*) 
where 
  { 
    ?p foaf:interest <http://www.livejournal.com/interests.bml?int=harry+potter> .
    ?p foaf:interest ?i2 
  } 
group by ?i2 
order by desc 2 
limit 20
;

We see whether knows relations are symmmetrical. We return the top n people that others claim to know without being reciprocally known.

sparql 
select ?celeb, count (*) 
where 
  { 
    ?claimant foaf:knows ?celeb . 
    filter (!bif:exists ((select (1) 
                          where 
                            {
                              ?celeb foaf:knows ?claimant 
                            }))) 
  } 
group by ?celeb 
order by desc 2 
limit 10
;

We look for a well connected person to start from.

sparql 
select ?p count (*) 
where 
  {
    ?p foaf:knows ?k 
  } 
group by ?p 
order by desc 2 
limit 50
;

We look for the most connected of the many online identities of Stefan Decker.

sparql 
select ?sd count (distinct ?xx) 
where 
  { 
    ?sd a foaf:Person . 
    ?sd ?name ?ns . 
    filter (bif:contains (?ns, "'Stefan Decker'")) . 
    ?sd foaf:knows ?xx 
  } 
group by ?sd 
order by desc 2
;

We count the transitive closure of Stefan Decker's connections

sparql 
select count (*) 
where 
  { 
    {
      select * 
      where 
        { 
          ?s foaf:knows ?o 
        }
    }
    option (transitive, t_distinct, t_in(?s), t_out(?o)) . 
    filter (?s = <mailto:stefan.decker@deri.org>)
  }
;

Now we do the same while following owl:sameAs links.

sparql 
define input:same-as "yes"
select count (*) 
where 
  { 
    {
      select * 
      where 
        { 
          ?s foaf:knows ?o 
        }
    }
    option (transitive, t_distinct, t_in(?s), t_out(?o)) . 
    filter (?s = <mailto:stefan.decker@deri.org>)
  }
;

Demo System

The system runs on Virtuoso 6 Cluster Edition. The database is partitioned into 12 partitions, each served by a distinct server process. The system demonstrated hosts these 12 servers on 2 machines, each with 2 xXeon 5345 and 16GB memory and 4 SATA disks. For scaling, the processes and corresponding partitions can be spread over a larger number of machines. If each ran on its own server with 16GB RAM, the whole data set could be served from memory. This is desirable for search engine or fast analytics applications. Most of the demonstrated queries run in memory on second invocation. The timing difference between first and second run is easily an order of magnitude.

On Sem Web Search

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:03:47 GMT

"I give the search keywords and you give me a SPARQL end-point and a query that will get the data."

Thus did one SPARQL user describe the task of a semantic/data web search engine.

In a previous post, I suggested that if the data web were the size of the document web, we'd be looking at two orders of magnitude more search complexity. It just might be so.

In the conversation, I pointed out that a search engine might have a copy of everything and even a capability to do SPARQL and full text on it all, yet still the users would be better off doing the queries against the SPARQL end-points of the data publishers. It is a bit like the fact that not all web browsing runs off Google's cache. With the data web, the point is even more pronounced, as serving a hit from Google's cache is a small operation but a complex query might be a very large one.

Yet, the data web is about ad-hoc joining between data sets of different origins. Thus a search engine of the data web ought to be capable of joining also, even if large queries ought to be run against individual publishers' end-points or the user's own data warehouse.

For ranking, the general consensus was that no single hit-ranking would be good for the data web. Thus word frequency-based hit-scores are OK for text hits but more is not obvious. I would think that some link analysis could apply but this will take some more experimentation.

For search summaries, if we have splitting of data sets into small fragments Ã la Sindice, search summaries are pretty much the same as with just text search. If we store triples, then we can give text style summaries of text hits in literals and Fresnel lens views of the structured data around the literal. For showing a page of hits, the lenses must abbreviate heavily but this is still feasible. The engine would know about the most common ontologies and summarize instance data accordingly.

Chris Bizer pointed out that trust and provenance are critical, especially if an answer is arrived at by joining multiple data sets. The trust of the conclusion is no greater than that of the weakest participating document. Different users will have different trusted sources.

A mature data web search engine would combine a provenance/trust specification, a search condition consisting of SPARQL or full text or both, and a specification for hit rank. Again, most searches would use defaults, but these three components should in principle be orthogonally specifiable.

Many places may host the same data set either for download or SPARQL access. The URI of the data set is not its URL. Different places may further host multiple data sets on one end-point. Thus the search engine ought to return all end-points where the set is to be found. The end-points themselves ought to be able to say what data sets they contain, under what graph IRIs. Since there is no consensus about end-point self description, this too would be left to the search engine. In practice, this could be accomplished by extending Sindice's semantic site map specification. A possible query would be to find an end-point containing a set of named data sets. If none were found, the search engine itself could run a query joining all the sets since it at least would hold them all.

Since many places will host sets like Wordnet or Uniprot, indexing these once for each copy hardly makes sense. Thus a site should identify its data by the data set's URI and not the copy's URL.

It came up in the discussion that search engines should share a ping format so that a single message format would be enough to notify any engine about data being updated. This is already partly the case with Sindice and PTSW (PingTheSemanticWeb) sharing a ping format.

Further, since it is no trouble to publish a copy of the 45G Uniprot file but a fair amount of work to index it, search engines should be smart about processing requests to index things, since these can amount to a denial of service attack.

Probably very large data sets should be indexed only in the form supplied by their publisher, and others hosting copies would just state that they hold a copy. If the claim to the copy proved false, users could complain and the search engine administrator would remove the listing. It seems that some manual curating cannot be avoided here.

On Data Web Search Business Model

It seems there can be an overlap between the data web search and the data web hosting businesses. For example, Talis rents space for hosting RDF data with SPARQL access. A search engine should offer basic indexing of everything for free, but could charge either data publishers or end users for running SPARQL queries across data sets. These do not have the nicely anticipatable and fairly uniform resource consumption of text lookups. In this manner, a search provider could cost-justify the capacity for allowing arbitrary queries.

The value of the data web consists of unexpected joining. Such joining takes place most efficiently if the sources are at least in some proximity, for example in the same data center. Thus the search provider could monetize functioning as the database provider for mesh-ups. In the document web, publishing pages is very simple and there is no great benefit from co-locating search and pages, rather the opposite. For the data web, the hosting with SPARQL and all is more complex and resembles providing search. Thus providing search can combine with providing SPARQL hosting, once we accept in principle that search should have arbitrary inter-document joining, even if it is at an extra premium.

The present search business model is advertising. If the data web is to be accessed by automated agents such as mesh-up code, display of ads is not self-evident. This is quite separate from the fact that semantics can lead to better ad targeting.

One model would be to do text lookups for free from a regular web page but show ads, just a la Google search ads. Using the service via web services for text or SPARQL would have a cost paid by the searching or publishing party and would not be financed by advertising.

In the case of data used in value-add data products (mesh-ups) that have financial value to their users, the original publisher of the data could even be paid for keeping the data up-to-date. This would hold for any time-sensitive feeds like news or financial feeds. Thus the hosting/search provider would be a broker of data-use fees and the data producer would be in the position of an AdSense inventory owner, i.e., a web site which shows AdSense ads. Organizing this under a hub providing back-office functions similar to an ad network could make sense even if the actual processing were divided among many sites.

Kingsley has repeatedly formulated the core value proposition of the semantic web in terms of dealing with information overload: There is the real-time enterprise and the real-time individual and both are beasts of perception. Their image is won and lost in the Internet online conversation space. We know that allegations, even if later proven false, will stick if left unchallenged. The function of semantics on the web is to allow one to track and manage where one stands. In fact, Garlik has made a business of just this, but now from a privacy and security angle. The Garlik DataPatrol harvests data from diverse sources and allows assessing vulnerability to identity theft, for example.

If one is in the business of collating all the structured data in the world, as a data web search engine is, then providing custom alerts for both security or public image management is quite natural. This can be a very valuable service if it works well.

At OpenLink, we will now experiment with the Sindice/Zitgist/PingTheSemanticWeb content. This is a regular part of the productization of Virtuoso's cluster edition. We expect to release some results in the next 4 weeks.