Rapid Approximate Aggregation with Distribution-Sensitive Interval Guarantees

August 10, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering

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

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Stephen Macke, Maryam Aliakbarpour, Ilias Diakonikolas, Aditya Parameswaran, Ronitt Rubinfeld arXiv ID 2008.03891 Category cs.DB: Databases Citations 5 Venue IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Aggregating data is fundamental to data analytics, data exploration, and OLAP. Approximate query processing (AQP) techniques are often used to accelerate computation of aggregates using samples, for which confidence intervals (CIs) are widely used to quantify the associated error. CIs used in practice fall into two categories: techniques that are tight but not correct, i.e., they yield tight intervals but only offer asymptotic guarantees, making them unreliable, or techniques that are correct but not tight, i.e., they offer rigorous guarantees, but are overly conservative, leading to confidence intervals that are too loose to be useful. In this paper, we develop a CI technique that is both correct and tighter than traditional approaches. Starting from conservative CIs, we identify two issues they often face: pessimistic mass allocation (PMA) and phantom outlier sensitivity (PHOS). By developing a novel range-trimming technique for eliminating PHOS and pairing it with known CI techniques without PMA, we develop a technique for computing CIs with strong guarantees that requires fewer samples for the same width. We implement our techniques underneath a sampling-optimized in-memory column store and show how to accelerate queries involving aggregates on a real dataset with speedups of up to 124x over traditional AQP-with-guarantees and more than 1000x over exact methods.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

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

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Databases

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted