AAAI2011 Tutorial Slides

Large-Scale Data Processing
with MapReduce
AAAI 2011 Tutorial
Jimmy Lin
University of Maryland

Sunday, August 7, 2011
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States
See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ for details
These slides are available on my homepage at http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~jimmylin/
First things first
About me
Course history
Audience survey
Agenda
Setting the stage: Why large data? Why is this different?
Introduction to MapReduce
MapReduce algorithm design
Text retrieval
Managing relational data
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce

Expectations
Focus on thinking at scale
Deconstruction into design patterns
Basic intuitions, not fancy math
Mapping well-known algorithms to MapReduce
Not a tutorial on programming Hadoop
Entry point to book
Setting the Stage:
Why large data?
Setting the stage
Text retrieval
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce
Source: Wikipedia (Everest)
How much data?
6.5 PB of user data +
50 TB/day (5/2009)
processes 20 PB a day (2008)
36 PB of user data +
80-90 TB/day (6/2010)
Wayback Machine: 3 PB +
100 TB/month (3/2009)
LHC: 15 PB a year
(any day now)
LSST: 6-10 PB a year (~2015)
640K ought to be
enough for anybody.
No data like more data!
(Banko and Brill, ACL 2001)
(Brants et al., EMNLP 2007)
s/knowledge/data/g;
How do we get here if were not Google?
+ simple, distributed programming models
cheap commodity clusters
= data-intensive computing for the masses!
Setting the Stage:
Why is this different?
Setting the stage
Text retrieval
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce
Parallel computing is hard!
Message Passing
P
1
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
Shared Memory
P
1
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
M
e
m
o
r
y

Different programming models
Different programming constructs
mutexes, conditional variables, barriers,
masters/slaves, producers/consumers, work queues,
Fundamental issues
scheduling, data distribution, synchronization,
inter-process communication, robustness, fault
tolerance,
Common problems
livelock, deadlock, data starvation, priority inversion
dining philosophers, sleeping barbers, cigarette smokers,
Architectural issues
Flynns taxonomy (SIMD, MIMD, etc.),
network typology, bisection bandwidth
UMA vs. NUMA, cache coherence
The reality: programmer shoulders the burden of managing concurrency
(I want my students developing new algorithms, not debugging race conditions)
master
slaves
producer consumer
producer consumer
work
queue
Where the rubber meets the road
Concurrency is difficult to reason about
At the scale of datacenters (even across datacenters)
In the presence of failures
In terms of multiple interacting services
The reality:
Lots of one-off solutions, custom code
Write you own dedicated library, then program with it
Burden on the programmer to explicitly manage everything

Source: Ricardo Guimares Herrmann
Source: NY Times (6/14/2006)
The datacenter is the computer!
I think there is a world
market for about five
computers.
Whats the point?
Its all about the right level of abstraction
Hide system-level details from the developers
No more race conditions, lock contention, etc.
Separating the what from how
Developer specifies the computation that needs to be performed
Execution framework (runtime) handles actual execution

Big Ideas
Scale out, not up
Limits of SMP and large shared-memory machines
Move processing to the data
Cluster have limited bandwidth
Process data sequentially, avoid random access
Seeks are expensive, disk throughput is reasonable
Seamless scalability
From the mythical man-month to the tradable machine-hour
Setting the stage
Text retrieval
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce
Typical Large-Data Problem
Iterate over a large number of records
Extract something of interest from each
Shuffle and sort intermediate results
Aggregate intermediate results
Generate final output
Key idea: provide a functional abstraction for
these two operations
(Dean and Ghemawat, OSDI 2004)
g g g g g
f f f f f
Map
Fold
Roots in Functional Programming
MapReduce
Programmers specify two functions:
map (k, v) <k, v>*
reduce (k, v) <k, v>*
All values with the same key are sent to the same reducer
The execution framework handles everything else
map map map map
Shuffle and Sort: aggregate values by keys
reduce reduce reduce
k
1
k
2
k
3
k
4
k
5
k
6
v
1
v
2
v
3
v
4
v
5
v
6
b

a

1

2

c

c

3

6

a

c

5

2

b

c

7

8

a

1

5

b

2

7

c

2

3

6

8

r
1
s
1
r
2
s
2
r
3
s
3
MapReduce
map (k, v) <k, v>*
All values with the same key are sent to the same reducer
Whats everything else?
MapReduce Runtime
Handles scheduling
Assigns workers to map and reduce tasks
Handles data distribution
Moves processes to data
Handles synchronization
Gathers, sorts, and shuffles intermediate data
Handles errors and faults
Detects worker failures and restarts
Everything happens on top of a distributed FS
MapReduce
map (k, v) <k, v>*
All values with the same key are reduced together
Not quiteusually, programmers also specify:
partition (k, number of partitions) partition for k
Often a simple hash of the key, e.g., hash(k) mod n
Divides up key space for parallel reduce operations
combine (k, v) <k, v>*
Mini-reducers that run in memory after the map phase
Used as an optimization to reduce network traffic
combine combine combine combine
b

a

1

2

c

9

a

c

5

2

b

c

7

8

partition partition partition partition
map map map map
k
1
k
2
k
3
k
4
k
5
k
6
v
1
v
2
v
3
v
4
v
5
v
6
b

a

1

2

c

c

3

6

a

c

5

2

b

c

7

8

a

1

5

b

2

7

c

2

9

8

r
1
s
1
r
2
s
2
r
3
s
3
c

2

3

6

8

Two more details
Barrier between map and reduce phases
But we can begin copying intermediate data earlier
Keys arrive at each reducer in sorted order
No enforced ordering across reducers
Hello World: Word Count
MapReduce can refer to
The programming model
The execution framework (aka runtime)
The specific implementation
Usage is usually clear from context!
MapReduce Implementations
Google has a proprietary implementation in C++
Bindings in Java, Python
Hadoop is an open-source implementation in Java
Original development led by Yahoo
Now an Apache open source project
Emerging as the de facto big data stack
Rapidly expanding software ecosystem
Lots of custom research implementations
For GPUs, cell processors, etc.
Includes variations of the basic programming model
Most of these slides are focused on Hadoop
split 0
split 1
split 2
split 3
split 4
worker
worker
worker
worker
worker
Master
User
Program
output
file 0
output
file 1
(1) submit
(2) schedule map (2) schedule reduce
(3) read
(4) local write
(5) remote read
(6) write
Input
files
Map
phase
Intermediate files
(on local disk)
Reduce
phase
Output
files
Adapted from (Dean and Ghemawat, OSDI 2004)
How do we get data to the workers?
Compute Nodes
NAS
SAN
Whats the problem here?
Distributed File System
Dont move data to workers move workers to the data!
Store data on the local disks of nodes in the cluster
Start up the workers on the node that has the data local
A distributed file system is the answer
GFS (Google File System) for Googles MapReduce
HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System) for Hadoop
GFS: Assumptions
Commodity hardware over exotic hardware
Scale out, not up
High component failure rates
Inexpensive commodity components fail all the time
Modest number of huge files
Multi-gigabyte files are common, if not encouraged
Files are write-once, mostly appended to
Perhaps concurrently
Large streaming reads over random access
High sustained throughput over low latency
GFS slides adapted from material by (Ghemawat et al., SOSP 2003)
GFS: Design Decisions
Files stored as chunks
Fixed size (64MB)
Reliability through replication
Each chunk replicated across 3+ chunkservers
Single master to coordinate access, keep metadata
Simple centralized management
No data caching
Little benefit due to large datasets, streaming reads
Simplify the API
Push some of the issues onto the client (e.g., data layout)
HDFS = GFS clone (same basic ideas)
From GFS to HDFS
Terminology differences:
GFS master = Hadoop namenode
GFS chunkservers = Hadoop datanodes
Functional differences:
File appends in HDFS is relatively new
HDFS performance is (likely) slower
For the most part, well use the Hadoop terminology
Adapted from (Ghemawat et al., SOSP 2003)
(file name, block id)
(block id, block location)
instructions to datanode
datanode state
(block id, byte range)
block data
HDFS namenode
HDFS datanode
Linux file system

HDFS datanode
Linux file system

File namespace
/foo/bar
block 3df2
Application
HDFS Client
HDFS Architecture
Namenode Responsibilities
Managing the file system namespace:
Holds file/directory structure, metadata, file-to-block mapping,
access permissions, etc.
Coordinating file operations:
Directs clients to datanodes for reads and writes
No data is moved through the namenode
Maintaining overall health:
Periodic communication with the datanodes
Block re-replication and rebalancing
Garbage collection
Putting everything together
datanode daemon
Linux file system

tasktracker
slave node
datanode daemon
Linux file system

tasktracker
slave node
datanode daemon
Linux file system

tasktracker
slave node
namenode
namenode daemon
job submission node
jobtracker
MapReduce Algorithm Design
Setting the stage
Text retrieval
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce
MapReduce: Recap
Programmers must specify:
map (k, v) <k, v>*
All values with the same key are reduced together
Optionally, also:
partition (k, number of partitions) partition for k
Often a simple hash of the key, e.g., hash(k) mod n
Divides up key space for parallel reduce operations
combine (k, v) <k, v>*
Mini-reducers that run in memory after the map phase
Used as an optimization to reduce network traffic

combine combine combine combine
b

a

1

2

c

9

a

c

5

2

b

c

7

8

partition partition partition partition
map map map map
k
1
k
2
k
3
k
4
k
5
k
6
v
1
v
2
v
3
v
4
v
5
v
6
b

a

1

2

c

c

3

6

a

c

5

2

b

c

7

8

a

1

5

b

2

7

c

2

9

8

r
1
s
1
r
2
s
2
r
3
s
3
Everything Else
Scheduling: assigns workers to map and reduce tasks
Data distribution: moves processes to data
Synchronization: gathers, sorts, and shuffles intermediate data
Errors and faults: detects worker failures and restarts
Limited control over data and execution flow
All algorithms must expressed in m, r, c, p
You dont know:
Where mappers and reducers run
When a mapper or reducer begins or finishes
Which input a particular mapper is processing
Which intermediate key a particular reducer is processing

Tools for Synchronization
Cleverly-constructed data structures
Bring partial results together
Sort order of intermediate keys
Control order in which reducers process keys
Partitioner
Control which reducer processes which keys
Preserving state in mappers and reducers
Capture dependencies across multiple keys and values

Preserving State
Mapper object
configure
map
close
state
one object per task
Reducer object
configure
reduce
close
state
one call per input
key-value pair
one call per
intermediate key
API initialization hook
API cleanup hook
Scalable Hadoop Algorithms: Themes
Avoid object creation
Inherently costly operation
Garbage collection
Avoid buffering
Limited heap size
Works for small datasets, but wont scale!

Importance of Local Aggregation
Ideal scaling characteristics:
Twice the data, twice the running time
Twice the resources, half the running time
Why cant we achieve this?
Synchronization requires communication
Communication kills performance
Thus avoid communication!
Reduce intermediate data via local aggregation
Combiners can help
Shuffle and Sort
Mapper
Reducer
other mappers
other reducers
circular buffer
(in memory)
spills (on disk)
merged spills
(on disk)
intermediate files
(on disk)
Combiner
Combiner
Word Count: Baseline
Whats the impact of combiners?
Word Count: Version 1
Are combiners still needed?
Word Count: Version 2
Design Pattern for Local Aggregation
In-mapper combining
Fold the functionality of the combiner into the mapper by
preserving state across multiple map calls
Advantages
Speed
Why is this faster than actual combiners?
Disadvantages
Explicit memory management required
Potential for order-dependent bugs
Combiner Design
Combiners and reducers share same method signature
Sometimes, reducers can serve as combiners
Often, not
Remember: combiner are optional optimizations
Should not affect algorithm correctness
May be run 0, 1, or multiple times
Example: find average of all integers associated with the
same key

Computing the Mean: Version 1
Why cant we use reducer as combiner?
Why doesnt this work?
Fixed?
Count and Normalize
Many algorithms reduce to estimating relative frequencies:

In the case of EM, pseudo-counts instead of actual counts
For a large class of algorithms: intuition is the same, just
varying complexity in terms of bookkeeping
Lets start with the intuition

= =
'
) ' , ( count
) , ( count
) ( count
) , ( count
) | (
B
B A
B A
A
B A
A B f
Algorithm Design: Running Example
Term co-occurrence matrix for a text collection
M = N x N matrix (N = vocabulary size)
M
ij
: number of times i and j co-occur in some context
(for concreteness, lets say context = sentence)
Why?
Distributional profiles as a way of measuring semantic distance
Semantic distance useful for many language processing tasks

MapReduce: Large Counting Problems
Term co-occurrence matrix for a text collection
= specific instance of a large counting problem
A large event space (number of terms)
A large number of observations (the collection itself)
Goal: keep track of interesting statistics about the events
Basic approach
Mappers generate partial counts
Reducers aggregate partial counts

How do we aggregate partial counts efficiently?
First Try: Pairs
Each mapper takes a sentence:
Generate all co-occurring term pairs
For all pairs, emit (a, b) count
Reducers sum up counts associated with these pairs
Use combiners!

Pairs: Pseudo-Code
Pairs Analysis
Advantages
Easy to implement, easy to understand
Disadvantages
Lots of pairs to sort and shuffle around (upper bound?)
Not many opportunities for combiners to work
Another Try: Stripes
Idea: group together pairs into an associative array

Each mapper takes a sentence:
Generate all co-occurring term pairs
For each term, emit a { b: count
b
, c: count
c
, d: count
d
}
Reducers perform element-wise sum of associative arrays

(a, b) 1
(a, c) 2
(a, d) 5
(a, e) 3
(a, f) 2
a { b: 1, c: 2, d: 5, e: 3, f: 2 }
a { b: 1, d: 5, e: 3 }
a { b: 1, c: 2, d: 2, f: 2 }
a { b: 2, c: 2, d: 7, e: 3, f: 2 }
+
Stripes: Pseudo-Code
Stripes Analysis
Advantages
Far less sorting and shuffling of key-value pairs
Can make better use of combiners
Disadvantages
More difficult to implement
Underlying object more heavyweight
Fundamental limitation in terms of size of event space
Cluster size: 38 cores
Data Source: Associated Press Worldstream (APW) of the English Gigaword Corpus (v3),
which contains 2.27 million documents (1.8 GB compressed, 5.7 GB uncompressed)
Relative Frequencies
How do we estimate relative frequencies from counts?

Why do we want to do this?
How do we do this with MapReduce?

= =
'
) ' , ( count
) , ( count
) ( count
) , ( count
) | (
B
B A
B A
A
B A
A B f
f(B|A): Stripes

Easy!
One pass to compute (a, *)
Another pass to directly compute f(B|A)
a {b
1
:3, b
2
:12, b
3
:7, b
4
:1, }
f(B|A): Pairs

For this to work:
Must emit extra (a, *) for every b
n
in mapper
Must make sure all as get sent to same reducer (use partitioner)
Must make sure (a, *) comes first (define sort order)
Must hold state in reducer across different key-value pairs
(a, b
1
) 3
(a, b
2
) 12
(a, b
3
) 7
(a, b
4
) 1

(a, *) 32
(a, b
1
) 3 / 32
(a, b
2
) 12 / 32
(a, b
3
) 7 / 32
(a, b
4
) 1 / 32

Reducer holds this value in memory
Order Inversion
Common design pattern
Computing relative frequencies requires marginal counts
But marginal cannot be computed until you see all counts
Buffering is a bad idea!
Trick: getting the marginal counts to arrive at the reducer before
the joint counts
Optimizations
Apply in-memory combining pattern to accumulate marginal counts
Should we apply combiners?
Synchronization: Pairs vs. Stripes
Approach 1: turn synchronization into an ordering problem
Sort keys into correct order of computation
Partition key space so that each reducer gets the appropriate set
of partial results
Hold state in reducer across multiple key-value pairs to perform
computation
Illustrated by the pairs approach
Approach 2: construct data structures that bring partial
results together
Each reducer receives all the data it needs to complete the
computation
Illustrated by the stripes approach

Secondary Sorting
MapReduce sorts input to reducers by key
Values may be arbitrarily ordered
What if want to sort value also?
E.g., k (v
1
, r), (v
3
, r), (v
4
, r), (v
8
, r)

Secondary Sorting: Solutions
Solution 1:
Buffer values in memory, then sort
Why is this a bad idea?
Solution 2:
Value-to-key conversion design pattern: form composite
intermediate key, (k, v
1
)
Let execution framework do the sorting
Preserve state across multiple key-value pairs to handle
processing
Anything else we need to do?
Recap: Tools for Synchronization
Cleverly-constructed data structures
Bring data together
Sort order of intermediate keys
Control order in which reducers process keys
Partitioner
Control which reducer processes which keys
Preserving state in mappers and reducers
Capture dependencies across multiple keys and values

Issues and Tradeoffs
Number of key-value pairs
Object creation overhead
Time for sorting and shuffling pairs across the network
Size of each key-value pair
De/serialization overhead
Local aggregation
Opportunities to perform local aggregation varies
Combiners make a big difference
Combiners vs. in-mapper combining
RAM vs. disk vs. network

Text Retrieval
Setting the stage
Text retrieval
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce
Abstract IR Architecture
Documents Query
Hits
Representation
Function
Representation
Function
Query Representation Document Representation
Comparison
Function
Index
offline online
Bag of Words
Terms weights computed as functions of:
Term frequency
Collection frequency
Document frequency
Average document length

Well-known weighting functions
TF.IDF
BM25
Dirichlet scores (LM framework)
Similarity boils down to inner products of feature vectors:
=
= =
n
i
k i j i k j k j
w w d d d d sim
1
, ,
) , (

2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Inverted Index
2
1
2
1
1
1
1 2 3
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
tf
df
blue
cat
egg
fish
green
ham
hat
one
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
blue
cat
egg
fish
green
ham
hat
one
1 1 red
1 1 two
1 red
1 two
one fish, two fish
Doc 1
red fish, blue fish
Doc 2
cat in the hat
Doc 3
green eggs and ham
Doc 4
3
4
1
4
4
3
2
1
2
2
1
[2,4]
[3]
[2,4]
[2]
[1]
[1]
[3]
[2]
[1]
[1]
[3]
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Inverted Index: Positional Information
2
1
2
1
1
1
1 2 3
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
tf
df
blue
cat
egg
fish
green
ham
hat
one
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
blue
cat
egg
fish
green
ham
hat
one
1 1 red
1 1 two
1 red
1 two
one fish, two fish
Doc 1
red fish, blue fish
Doc 2
cat in the hat
Doc 3
green eggs and ham
Doc 4
3
4
1
4
4
3
2
1
2
2
1
Retrieval in a Nutshell
Look up postings lists corresponding to query terms
Traverse postings for each query term
Store partial query-document scores in accumulators
Select top k results to return
Retrieval: Document-at-a-Time
Evaluate documents one at a time (score all query terms)

Tradeoffs
Small memory footprint (good)
Must read through all postings (bad), but skipping possible
More disk seeks (bad), but blocking possible
fish
2 1 3 1 2 3 1 9 21 34 35 80

blue
2 1 1 9 21 35

Accumulators
(e.g. priority queue)
Document score in top k?
Yes: Insert document score, extract-min if queue too large
No: Do nothing
Retrieval: Query-at-a-Time
Evaluate documents one query term at a time
Usually, starting from most rare term (often with tf-sorted postings)

Tradeoffs
Early termination heuristics (good)
Large memory footprint (bad), but filtering heuristics possible

fish
2 1 3 1 2 3 1 9 21 34 35 80

blue
2 1 1 9 21 35

Accumulators
(e.g., hash)
Score
{q=x}
(doc n) = s
MapReduce it?
The indexing problem
Scalability is critical
Must be relatively fast, but need not be real time
Fundamentally a batch operation
Incremental updates may or may not be important
For the web, crawling is a challenge in itself
The retrieval problem
Must have sub-second response time
For the web, only need relatively few results

Indexing: Performance Analysis
Fundamentally, a large sorting problem
Terms usually fit in memory
Postings usually dont
How is it done on a single machine?
How can it be done with MapReduce?
First, lets characterize the problem size:
Size of vocabulary
Size of postings

Vocabulary Size: Heaps Law

Heaps Law: linear in log-log space
Vocabulary size grows unbounded!

b
kT M =
M is vocabulary size
T is collection size (number of documents)
k and b are constants
Typically, k is between 30 and 100, b is between 0.4 and 0.6
Heaps Law for RCV1
Reuters-RCV1 collection: 806,791 newswire documents (Aug 20, 1996-August 19, 1997)
k = 44
b = 0.49
First 1,000,020 terms:
Predicted = 38,323
Actual = 38,365
Manning, Raghavan, Schtze, Introduction to Information Retrieval (2008)
Postings Size: Zipfs Law

Zipfs Law: (also) linear in log-log space
Specific case of Power Law distributions
In other words:
A few elements occur very frequently
Many elements occur very infrequently

i
c
i
= cf
cf is the collection frequency of i-th common term
c is a constant
Zipfs Law for RCV1
Reuters-RCV1 collection: 806,791 newswire documents (Aug 20, 1996-August 19, 1997)
Fit isnt that good
but good enough!
Manning, Raghavan, Schtze, Introduction to Information Retrieval (2008)
MapReduce: Index Construction
Map over all documents
Emit term as key, (docno, tf) as value
Emit other information as necessary (e.g., term position)
Sort/shuffle: group postings by term
Reduce
Gather and sort the postings (e.g., by docno or tf)
Write postings to disk
MapReduce does all the heavy lifting!
1
1
2
1
1
2 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Inverted Indexing with MapReduce
1
one
1
two
1
fish
one fish, two fish
Doc 1
2
red
2
blue
2
fish
red fish, blue fish
Doc 2
3
cat
3
hat
cat in the hat
Doc 3
1
fish
2
1
one
1
two
2
red
3
cat
2
blue
3
hat
Map
Reduce
Inverted Indexing: Pseudo-Code
[2,4]
[1]
[3]
[1]
[2]
[1]
[1]
[3]
[2]
[3]
[2,4]
[1]
[2,4]
[2,4]
[1]
[3]
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Positional Indexes
1
one
1
two
1
fish
2
red
2
blue
2
fish
3
cat
3
hat
1
fish
2
1
one
1
two
2
red
3
cat
2
blue
3
hat
Map
Reduce
one fish, two fish
Doc 1
red fish, blue fish
Doc 2
cat in the hat
Doc 3
Inverted Indexing: Pseudo-Code
Scalability Bottleneck
Initial implementation: terms as keys, postings as values
Reducers must buffer all postings associated with key (to sort)
What if we run out of memory to buffer postings?
Uh oh!
[2,4]
[9]
[1,8,22]
[23]
[8,41]
[2,9,76]
[2,4]
[9]
[1,8,22]
[23]
[8,41]
[2,9,76]
2
1
3
1
2
3
Another Try
1
fish
9
21
(values) (key)
34
35
80
1
fish
9
21
(values) (keys)
34
35
80
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
How is this different?
Let the framework do the sorting
Term frequency implicitly stored
Directly write compressed postings
Where have we seen this before?
2 1 3 1 2 3
2 1 3 1 2 3
Postings Encoding
1
fish
9 21 34 35 80

1
fish
8 12 13 1 45

Conceptually:
In Practice:
Dont encode docnos, encode gaps (or d-gaps)
But its not obvious that this save space
Overview of Index Compression
Byte-aligned vs. bit-aligned
Non-parameterized bit-aligned
Unary codes
codes
o codes
Parameterized bit-aligned
Golomb codes (local Bernoulli model)
Block-based methods
Simple-9
PForDelta

Want more detail? Start with Managing Gigabytes by Witten, Moffat, and Bell!
Index Compression: Performance
Witten, Moffat, Bell, Managing Gigabytes (1999)
Unary 262 1918
Binary 15 20
6.51 6.63
o 6.23 6.38
Golomb 6.09 5.84
Bible TREC
Bible: King James version of the Bible; 31,101 verses (4.3 MB)
TREC: TREC disks 1+2; 741,856 docs (2070 MB)
One common approach
Comparison of Index Size (bits per pointer)
Issue: For Golomb compression, optimal b ~ 0.69 (N/df)
Which means different b for every term!
Chicken and Egg?
1
fish
9
[2,4]
[9]
21
[1,8,22]
(value) (key)
34
[23]
35
[8,41]
80
[2,9,76]
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
Write directly to disk
But wait! How do we set the
Golomb parameter b?
We need the df to set b
But we dont know the df until weve
seen all postings!

Optimal b ~ 0.69 (N/df)
Sound familiar?
Getting the df
In the mapper:
Emit special key-value pairs to keep track of df
In the reducer:
Make sure special key-value pairs come first: process them to
determine df
Remember: proper partitioning!
Getting the df: Modified Mapper
one fish, two fish
Doc 1
1
fish [2,4]
(value) (key)
1
one [1]
1
two [3]

fish [1]

one [1]

two [1]
Input document
Emit normal key-value pairs
Emit special key-value pairs to keep track of df
Getting the df: Modified Reducer
1
fish
9
[2,4]
[9]
21
[1,8,22]
(value) (key)
34
[23]
35
[8,41]
80
[2,9,76]
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
Write compressed postings

fish [63] [82] [27]

First, compute the df by summing contributions
from all special key-value pair
Compute Golomb parameter b
Important: properly define sort order to make
sure special key-value pairs come first!
Where have we seen this before?
MapReduce it?
The indexing problem
Scalability is paramount
Must be relatively fast, but need not be real time
Fundamentally a batch operation
Incremental updates may or may not be important
For the web, crawling is a challenge in itself
The retrieval problem
Must have sub-second response time
For the web, only need relatively few results

Retrieval with MapReduce?
MapReduce is fundamentally batch-oriented
Optimized for throughput, not latency
Startup of mappers and reducers is expensive
MapReduce is not suitable for real-time queries!
Use separate infrastructure for retrieval
Important Ideas
Partitioning (for scalability)
Replication (for redundancy)
Caching (for speed)
Routing (for load balancing)
The rest is just details!
Term vs. Document Partitioning

T
D
T
1
T
2
T
3
D

T

D
1
D
2
D
3
Term
Partitioning
Document
Partitioning
partitions

r
e
p
l
i
c
a
s

brokers
Typical Search Architecture
Managing Relational Data
Setting the stage
Text retrieval
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce
Managing Relational Data
In the good old days, organizations used relational
databases to manage big data
Then along came Hadoop
Where does MapReduce fit in?
Relational Databases vs. MapReduce
Relational databases:
Multipurpose: analysis and transactions; batch and interactive
Data integrity via ACID transactions
Lots of tools in software ecosystem (for ingesting, reporting, etc.)
Supports SQL (and SQL integration, e.g., JDBC)
Automatic SQL query optimization
MapReduce (Hadoop):
Designed for large clusters, fault tolerant
Data is accessed in native format
Supports many query languages
Programmers retain control over performance
Open source
Source: OReilly Blog post by Joseph Hellerstein (11/19/2008)
Database Workloads
OLTP (online transaction processing)
Typical applications: e-commerce, banking, airline reservations
User facing: real-time, low latency, highly-concurrent
Tasks: relatively small set of standard transactional queries
Data access pattern: random reads, updates, writes (involving
relatively small amounts of data)
OLAP (online analytical processing)
Typical applications: business intelligence, data mining
Back-end processing: batch workloads, less concurrency
Tasks: complex analytical queries, often ad hoc
Data access pattern: table scans, large amounts of data involved
per query

One Database or Two?
Downsides of co-existing OLTP and OLAP workloads
Poor memory management
Conflicting data access patterns
Variable latency
Solution: separate databases
User-facing OLTP database for high-volume transactions
Data warehouse for OLAP workloads
How do we connect the two?
OLTP/OLAP Architecture
OLTP OLAP
ETL
(Extract, Transform, and Load)
OLTP/OLAP Integration
OLTP database for user-facing transactions
Retain records of all activity
Periodic ETL (e.g., nightly)
Extract-Transform-Load (ETL)
Extract records from source
Transform: clean data, check integrity, aggregate, etc.
Load into OLAP database
OLAP database for data warehousing
Business intelligence: reporting, ad hoc queries, data mining, etc.
Feedback to improve OLTP services
Business Intelligence
Premise: more data leads to better business decisions
Periodic reporting as well as ad hoc queries
Analysts, not programmers (importance of tools and dashboards)
Examples:
Slicing-and-dicing activity by different dimensions to better
understand the marketplace
Analyzing log data to improve OLTP experience
Analyzing log data to better optimize ad placement
Analyzing purchasing trends for better supply-chain management
Mining for correlations between otherwise unrelated activities

OLTP/OLAP Architecture: Hadoop?
OLTP OLAP
ETL
OLTP/OLAP/Hadoop Architecture
OLTP OLAP
ETL
Hadoop
ETL Bottleneck
Reporting is often a nightly task:
ETL is often slow: why?
What happens if processing 24 hours of data takes longer than 24
hours?
Hadoop is perfect:
Most likely, you already have some data warehousing solution
Ingest is limited by speed of HDFS
Scales out with more nodes
Massively parallel
Ability to use any processing tool
Much cheaper than parallel databases
ETL is a batch process anyway!
Working Scenario
Two tables:
User demographics (gender, age, income, etc.)
User page visits (URL, time spent, etc.)
Analyses we might want to perform:
Statistics on demographic characteristics
Statistics on page visits
Statistics on page visits by URL
Statistics on page visits by demographic characteristic

How to perform common relational
operations in MapReduce
Except, dont! (later)
Relational Algebra
Primitives
Projection (t)
Selection (o)
Cartesian product ()
Set union ()
Set difference ()
Rename ()
Other operations
Join ()
Group by aggregation

Projection
R
1
t
R
2
R
3
R
4
R
5
R
1
R
2
R
3
R
4
R
5
Projection in MapReduce
Easy!
Map over tuples, emit new tuples with appropriate attributes
No reducers, unless for regrouping or resorting tuples
Alternatively: perform in reducer, after some other processing
Basically limited by HDFS streaming speeds
Speed of encoding/decoding tuples becomes important
Relational databases take advantage of compression
Semistructured data? No problem!

Selection
R
1
o
R
2
R
3
R
4
R
5
R
1
R
3
Selection in MapReduce
Easy!
Map over tuples, emit only tuples that meet criteria
Alternatively: perform in reducer, after some other processing
Basically limited by HDFS streaming speeds
Speed of encoding/decoding tuples becomes important
Relational databases take advantage of compression
Semistructured data? No problem!
Group by Aggregation
Example: What is the average time spent per URL?
In SQL:
SELECT url, AVG(time) FROM visits GROUP BY url
In MapReduce:
Map over tuples, emit time, keyed by url
Framework automatically groups values by keys
Compute average in reducer
Optimize with combiners
Relational Joins
R
1
R
2
R
3
R
4
S
1
S
2
S
3
S
4
R
1
S
2
R
2
S
4
R
3
S
1
R
4
S
3
Types of Relationships
One-to-One One-to-Many Many-to-Many
Join Algorithms in MapReduce
Reduce-side join
Map-side join
In-memory join
Striped variant
Memcached variant
Reduce-side Join
Basic idea: group by join key
Map over both sets of tuples
Emit tuple as value with join key as the intermediate key
Execution framework brings together tuples sharing the same key
Perform actual join in reducer
Similar to a sort-merge join in database terminology
Two variants
1-to-1 joins
1-to-many and many-to-many joins

Reduce-side Join: 1-to-1
R
1
R
4
S
2
S
3
R
1
R
4
S
2
S
3
keys

values

Map

R
1
R
4
S
2
S
3
keys

values

Reduce

Note: no guarantee if R is going to come first or S
Reduce-side Join: 1-to-many
R
1
S
2
S
3
R
1
S
2
S
3
S
9
keys

values

Map

R
1
S
2
keys

values

Reduce

S
9
S
3

Reduce-side Join: V-to-K Conversion
R
1
keys

values

In reducer

S
2
S
3
S
9
R
4
S
3
S
7
New key encountered: hold in memory
Cross with records from other set
New key encountered: hold in memory
Reduce-side Join: many-to-many
R
1
keys

values

In reducer

S
2
S
3
S
9
Hold in memory
R
5
R
8
Map-side Join: Basic Idea
Assume two datasets are sorted by the join key:
R
1
R
2
R
3
R
4
S
1
S
2
S
3
S
4
A sequential scan through both datasets to join
(called a merge join in database terminology)
Map-side Join: Parallel Scans
If datasets are sorted by join key, join can be
accomplished by a scan over both datasets
How can we accomplish this in parallel?
Partition and sort both datasets in the same manner
In MapReduce:
Map over one dataset, read from other corresponding partition
No reducers necessary (unless to repartition or resort)
Consistently partitioned datasets: realistic to expect?
In-Memory Join
Basic idea: load one dataset into memory, stream over
other dataset
Works if R << S and R fits into memory
Called a hash join in database terminology
MapReduce implementation
Distribute R to all nodes
Map over S, each mapper loads R in memory, hashed by join key
For every tuple in S, look up join key in R

In-Memory Join: Variants
Striped variant:
R too big to fit into memory?
Divide R into R
1
, R
2
, R
3
, s.t. each R
n
fits into memory
Perform in-memory join: n, R
n
S
Take the union of all join results
Memcached join:
Load R into memcached
Replace in-memory hash lookup with memcached lookup
Which join to use?
In-memory join > map-side join > reduce-side join
Why?
Limitations of each?
In-memory join: memory
Map-side join: sort order and partitioning
Reduce-side join: general purpose
Key Features in Databases
Common optimizations in relational databases
Reducing the amount of data to read
Reducing the amount of tuples to decode
Data placement
Query planning and cost estimation
Same ideas can be applied to MapReduce
For example, column stores in Google Dremel
A few commercialized products
Many research prototypes

One size does not fit all
Databases when:
You know what the question is: query optimizers work well
Well-specified schema, clean data
MapReduce when:
You dont necessarily know what the question is: go brute force
Exploratory data analysis
Semi-structured, noisy, diverse data
ETL is the insight-generation process

Graph Algorithms
Setting the stage
Text retrieval
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce
Whats a graph?
G = (V,E), where
V represents the set of vertices (nodes)
E represents the set of edges (links)
Both vertices and edges may contain additional information
Different types of graphs:
Directed vs. undirected edges
Presence or absence of cycles
Graphs are everywhere:
Hyperlink structure of the Web
Physical structure of computers on the Internet
Interstate highway system
Social networks
Source: Wikipedia (Knigsberg)
Some Graph Problems
Finding shortest paths
Routing Internet traffic and UPS trucks
Finding minimum spanning trees
Telco laying down fiber
Finding Max Flow
Airline scheduling
Identify special nodes and communities
Breaking up terrorist cells, spread of avian flu
Bipartite matching
Monster.com, Match.com
And of course... PageRank
Graphs and MapReduce
Graph algorithms typically involve:
Performing computations at each node: based on node features,
edge features, and local link structure
Propagating computations: traversing the graph
Key questions:
How do you represent graph data in MapReduce?
How do you traverse a graph in MapReduce?

Representing Graphs
G = (V, E)
Two common representations
Adjacency matrix
Adjacency list

Adjacency Matrices
Represent a graph as an n x n square matrix M
n = |V|
M
ij
= 1 means a link from node i to j

1 2 3 4
1 0 1 0 1
2 1 0 1 1
3 1 0 0 0
4 1 0 1 0
1
2
3
4
Adjacency Matrices: Critique
Advantages:
Amenable to mathematical manipulation
Iteration over rows and columns corresponds to computations on
outlinks and inlinks
Disadvantages:
Lots of zeros for sparse matrices
Lots of wasted space

Adjacency Lists
Take adjacency matrices and throw away all the zeros
1: 2, 4
2: 1, 3, 4
3: 1
4: 1, 3
1 2 3 4
1 0 1 0 1
2 1 0 1 1
3 1 0 0 0
4 1 0 1 0
Adjacency Lists: Critique
Advantages:
Much more compact representation
Easy to compute over outlinks
Disadvantages:
Much more difficult to compute over inlinks

Single Source Shortest Path
Problem: find shortest path from a source node to one or
more target nodes
Shortest might also mean lowest weight or cost
First, a refresher: Dijkstras Algorithm
Dijkstras Algorithm Example
0

10
5
2 3
2
1
9
7
4 6
Example from CLR
0
10
5

Example from CLR
10
5
2 3
2
1
9
7
4 6
0
8
5
14
7
Example from CLR
10
5
2 3
2
1
9
7
4 6
0
8
5
13
7
Example from CLR
10
5
2 3
2
1
9
7
4 6
0
8
5
9
7
1
Example from CLR
10
5
2 3
2
1
9
7
4 6
0
8
5
9
7
Example from CLR
10
5
2 3
2
1
9
7
4 6
Single Source Shortest Path
Problem: find shortest path from a source node to one or
more target nodes
Shortest might also mean lowest weight or cost
Single processor machine: Dijkstras Algorithm
MapReduce: parallel Breadth-First Search (BFS)
Finding the Shortest Path
Consider simple case of equal edge weights
Solution to the problem can be defined inductively
Heres the intuition:
Define: b is reachable from a if b is on adjacency list of a
DISTANCETO(s) = 0
For all nodes p reachable from s,
DISTANCETO(p) = 1
For all nodes n reachable from some other set of nodes M,
DISTANCETO(n) = 1 + min(DISTANCETO(m), m e M)
s
m
3
m
2
m
1
n

d
1
d
2
d
3
Source: Wikipedia (Wave)
Visualizing Parallel BFS
n
0
n
3
n
2
n
1
n
7
n
6
n
5
n
4
n
9
n
8
From Intuition to Algorithm
Data representation:
Key: node n
Value: d (distance from start), adjacency list (list of nodes
reachable from n)
Initialization: for all nodes except for start node, d =
Mapper:
m e adjacency list: emit (m, d + 1)
Sort/Shuffle
Groups distances by reachable nodes
Reducer:
Selects minimum distance path for each reachable node
Additional bookkeeping needed to keep track of actual path
Multiple Iterations Needed
Each MapReduce iteration advances the known frontier
by one hop
Subsequent iterations include more and more reachable nodes as
frontier expands
Multiple iterations are needed to explore entire graph
Preserving graph structure:
Problem: Where did the adjacency list go?
Solution: mapper emits (n, adjacency list) as well
BFS Pseudo-Code
Stopping Criterion
How many iterations are needed in parallel BFS (equal
edge weight case)?
When a node is first discovered, were guaranteed to
have found the shortest path
Comparison to Dijkstra
Dijkstras algorithm is more efficient
At any step it only pursues edges from the minimum-cost path
inside the frontier
MapReduce explores all paths in parallel
Lots of waste
Useful work is only done at the frontier
Why cant we do better using MapReduce?
Weighted Edges
Now add positive weights to the edges
Simple change: adjacency list now includes a weight w for
each edge
In mapper, emit (m, d + w
p
) instead of (m, d + 1) for each node m
Thats it?
Stopping Criterion
How many iterations are needed in parallel BFS (positive
edge weight case)?
When a node is first discovered, were guaranteed to
have found the shortest path

Additional Complexities
s
p
q
r
search frontier
10
n
1

n
2

n
3

n
4

n
5

n
6
n
7

n
8

n
9

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stopping Criterion
How many iterations are needed in parallel BFS (positive
edge weight case)?
Practicalities of implementation in MapReduce

Graphs and MapReduce
Graph algorithms typically involve:
Performing computations at each node: based on node features,
edge features, and local link structure
Propagating computations: traversing the graph
Generic recipe:
Represent graphs as adjacency lists
Perform local computations in mapper
Pass along partial results via outlinks, keyed by destination node
Perform aggregation in reducer on inlinks to a node
Iterate until convergence: controlled by external driver
Dont forget to pass the graph structure between iterations

Random Walks Over the Web
Random surfer model:
User starts at a random Web page
User randomly clicks on links, surfing from page to page
PageRank
Characterizes the amount of time spent on any given page
Mathematically, a probability distribution over pages
PageRank captures notions of page importance
Correspondence to human intuition?
One of thousands of features used in web search
Note: query-independent

Given page x with inlinks t
1
t
n
, where
C(t) is the out-degree of t
o is probability of random jump
N is the total number of nodes in the graph
PageRank: Defined
=
+
|
.
|
\
|
=
n
i
i
i
t C
t PR
N
x PR
1
) (
) (
) 1 (
1
) ( o o
X
t
1
t
2
t
n

Computing PageRank
Properties of PageRank
Can be computed iteratively
Effects at each iteration are local
Sketch of algorithm:
Start with seed PR
i
values
Each page distributes PR
i
credit to all pages it links to
Each target page adds up credit from multiple in-bound links to
compute PR
i+1
Iterate until values converge

Simplified PageRank
First, tackle the simple case:
No random jump factor
No dangling links
Then, factor in these complexities
Why do we need the random jump?
Where do dangling links come from?
Sample PageRank Iteration (1)
n
1
(0.2)
n
4
(0.2)
n
3
(0.2)
n
5
(0.2)
n
2
(0.2)
0.1
0.1
0.2 0.2
0.1
0.1
0.066
0.066
0.066
n
1
(0.066)
n
4
(0.3)
n
3
(0.166)
n
5
(0.3)
n
2
(0.166) Iteration 1
Sample PageRank Iteration (2)
n
1
(0.066)
n
4
(0.3)
n
3
(0.166)
n
5
(0.3)
n
2
(0.166)
0.033
0.033
0.3
0.166
0.083
0.083
0.1
0.1
0.1
n
1
(0.1)
n
4
(0.2)
n
3
(0.183)
n
5
(0.383)
n
2
(0.133)
Iteration 2
PageRank in MapReduce
n
5
[n
1
, n
2
, n
3
] n
1
[n
2
, n
4
] n
2
[n
3
, n
5
] n
3
[n
4
] n
4
[n
5
]
n
2
n
4
n
3
n
5
n
1
n
2
n
3
n
4
n
5
n
2
n
4
n
3
n
5
n
1
n
2
n
3
n
4
n
5
n
5
[n
1
, n
2
, n
3
] n
1
[n
2
, n
4
] n
2
[n
3
, n
5
] n
3
[n
4
] n
4
[n
5
]
Map
Reduce
PageRank Pseudo-Code
Complete PageRank
Two additional complexities
What is the proper treatment of dangling nodes?
How do we factor in the random jump factor?
Solution:
Second pass to redistribute missing PageRank mass and
account for random jumps

p is PageRank value from before, p' is updated PageRank value
|G| is the number of nodes in the graph
m is the missing PageRank mass
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
= p
G
m
G
p ) 1 (
1
' o o
PageRank Convergence
Alternative convergence criteria
Iterate until PageRank values dont change
Iterate until PageRank rankings dont change
Fixed number of iterations
Convergence for web graphs?
Beyond PageRank
Link structure is important for web search
PageRank is one of many link-based features: HITS, SALSA, etc.
One of many thousands of features used in ranking
Adversarial nature of web search
Link spamming
Spider traps
Keyword stuffing

Efficient Graph Algorithms: Tricks
In-mapper combining: efficient local aggregation
Smarter partitioning: create more opportunities for local
aggregation
Schimmy: avoid shuffling the graph
Jimmy Lin and Michael Schatz. Design Patterns for Efficient Graph Algorithms in MapReduce. Proceedings of the Eighth
Workshop on Mining and Learning with Graphs Workshop (MLG-2010), pages 78-85, July 2010, Washington, D.C.
In-Mapper Combining
Use combiners
Perform local aggregation on map output
Downside: intermediate data is still materialized
Better: in-mapper combining
Preserve state across multiple map calls, aggregate messages in
buffer, emit buffer contents at end
Downside: requires memory management
configure
map
close
buffer
Better Partitioning
Default: hash partitioning
Randomly assign nodes to partitions
Observation: many graphs exhibit local structure
E.g., communities in social networks
Better partitioning creates more opportunities for local aggregation
Unfortunately, partitioning is hard!
Sometimes, chick-and-egg
But cheap heuristics sometimes available
For webgraphs: range partition on domain-sorted URLs
Schimmy Design Pattern
Basic implementation contains two dataflows:
Messages (actual computations)
Graph structure (bookkeeping)
Schimmy: separate the two data flows, shuffle only the
messages
Basic idea: merge join between graph structure and messages
S T
both relations sorted by join key
S
1
T
1
S
2
T
2
S
3
T
3
both relations consistently partitioned and sorted by join key
S
1
T
1
Do the Schimmy!
Schimmy = reduce side parallel merge join between graph
structure and messages
Consistent partitioning between input and intermediate data
Mappers emit only messages (actual computation)
Reducers read graph structure directly from HDFS
S
2
T
2
S
3
T
3
Reducer Reducer Reducer
intermediate data
(messages)
intermediate data
(messages)
intermediate data
(messages)
from HDFS
(graph structure)
from HDFS
(graph structure)
from HDFS
(graph structure)
Experiments
Cluster setup:
10 workers, each 2 cores (3.2 GHz Xeon), 4GB RAM, 367 GB disk
Hadoop 0.20.0 on RHELS 5.3
Dataset:
First English segment of ClueWeb09 collection
50.2m web pages (1.53 TB uncompressed, 247 GB compressed)
Extracted webgraph: 1.4 billion links, 7.0 GB
Dataset arranged in crawl order
Setup:
Measured per-iteration running time (5 iterations)
100 partitions
Results
Best Practices
Results
+18%
1.4b
674m
Results
+18%
-15%
1.4b
674m
Results
+18%
-15%
-60%
1.4b
674m
86m
Results
+18%
-15%
-60%
-69%
1.4b
674m
86m
Beyond MapReduce
Setting the stage
Text retrieval
Graph algorithms
Beyond MapReduce
From GFS to Bigtable
Googles GFS is a distributed file system
Bigtable is a storage system for structured data
Built on top of GFS
Solves many GFS issues: real-time access, short files, short reads
Serves as a source and a sink for MapReduce jobs
Bigtable: Data Model
A table is a sparse, distributed, persistent
multidimensional sorted map
Map indexed by a row key, column key, and a timestamp
(row:string, column:string, time:int64) uninterpreted byte array
Supports lookups, inserts, deletes
Single row transactions only
Image Source: Chang et al., OSDI 2006
HBase
Image Source: http://www.larsgeorge.com/2009/10/hbase-architecture-101-storage.html
Source: flickr (60in3/2338247189)
Source: NY Times (6/14/2006)
Its all about the right level of abstraction
Need for High-Level Languages
Hadoop is great for large-data processing!
But writing Java programs for everything is verbose and slow
Analysts dont want to (or cant) write Java
Solution: develop higher-level data processing languages
Hive: HQL is like SQL
Pig: Pig Latin is a dataflow language
Hive and Pig
Hive: data warehousing application in Hadoop
Query language is HQL, variant of SQL
Tables stored on HDFS as flat files
Developed by Facebook, now open source
Pig: large-scale data processing system
Scripts are written in Pig Latin, a dataflow language
Developed by Yahoo!, now open source
Roughly 1/3 of all Yahoo! internal jobs
Common idea:
Provide higher-level language to facilitate large-data processing
Higher-level language compiles down to Hadoop jobs

Hive: Example
Hive looks similar to an SQL database
Relational join on two tables:
Table of word counts from Shakespeare collection
Table of word counts from the bible

Source: Material drawn from Cloudera training VM
SELECT s.word, s.freq, k.freq FROM shakespeare s
JOIN bible k ON (s.word = k.word) WHERE s.freq >= 1 AND k.freq >= 1
ORDER BY s.freq DESC LIMIT 10;

the 25848 62394
I 23031 8854
and 19671 38985
to 18038 13526
of 16700 34654
a 14170 8057
you 12702 2720
my 11297 4135
in 10797 12445
is 8882 6884
Hive: Behind the Scenes
SELECT s.word, s.freq, k.freq FROM shakespeare s
JOIN bible k ON (s.word = k.word) WHERE s.freq >= 1 AND k.freq >= 1
ORDER BY s.freq DESC LIMIT 10;
(TOK_QUERY (TOK_FROM (TOK_JOIN (TOK_TABREF shakespeare s) (TOK_TABREF bible k) (= (. (TOK_TABLE_OR_COL s)
word) (. (TOK_TABLE_OR_COL k) word)))) (TOK_INSERT (TOK_DESTINATION (TOK_DIR TOK_TMP_FILE)) (TOK_SELECT
(TOK_SELEXPR (. (TOK_TABLE_OR_COL s) word)) (TOK_SELEXPR (. (TOK_TABLE_OR_COL s) freq)) (TOK_SELEXPR (.
(TOK_TABLE_OR_COL k) freq))) (TOK_WHERE (AND (>= (. (TOK_TABLE_OR_COL s) freq) 1) (>= (. (TOK_TABLE_OR_COL k)
freq) 1))) (TOK_ORDERBY (TOK_TABSORTCOLNAMEDESC (. (TOK_TABLE_OR_COL s) freq))) (TOK_LIMIT 10)))
(one or more of MapReduce jobs)
(Abstract Syntax Tree)
Hive: Behind the Scenes
STAGE DEPENDENCIES:
Stage-1 is a root stage
Stage-2 depends on stages: Stage-1
Stage-0 is a root stage

STAGE PLANS:
Stage: Stage-1
Map Reduce
Alias -> Map Operator Tree:
s
TableScan
alias: s
Filter Operator
predicate:
expr: (freq >= 1)
type: boolean
Reduce Output Operator
key expressions:
expr: word
type: string
sort order: +
Map-reduce partition columns:
expr: word
type: string
tag: 0
value expressions:
expr: freq
type: int
expr: word
type: string
k
TableScan
alias: k
Filter Operator
predicate:
expr: (freq >= 1)
type: boolean
key expressions:
expr: word
type: string
sort order: +
Map-reduce partition columns:
expr: word
type: string
tag: 1
value expressions:
expr: freq
type: int
Reduce Operator Tree:
Join Operator
condition map:
Inner Join 0 to 1
condition expressions:
0 {VALUE._col0} {VALUE._col1}
1 {VALUE._col0}
outputColumnNames: _col0, _col1, _col2
Filter Operator
predicate:
expr: ((_col0 >= 1) and (_col2 >= 1))
type: boolean
Select Operator
expressions:
expr: _col1
type: string
expr: _col0
type: int
expr: _col2
type: int
outputColumnNames: _col0, _col1, _col2
File Output Operator
compressed: false
GlobalTableId: 0
table:
input format: org.apache.hadoop.mapred.SequenceFileInputFormat
output format: org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.io.HiveSequenceFileOutputFormat

Stage: Stage-2
Map Reduce
Alias -> Map Operator Tree:
hdfs://localhost:8022/tmp/hive-training/364214370/10002
key expressions:
expr: _col1
type: int
sort order: -
tag: -1
value expressions:
expr: _col0
type: string
expr: _col1
type: int
expr: _col2
type: int
Reduce Operator Tree:
Extract
Limit
File Output Operator
compressed: false
GlobalTableId: 0
table:
input format: org.apache.hadoop.mapred.TextInputFormat
output format: org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.io.HiveIgnoreKeyTextOutputFormat

Stage: Stage-0
Fetch Operator
limit: 10
Pig: Example
User Url Time
Amy cnn.com 8:00
Amy bbc.com 10:00
Amy flickr.com 10:05
Fred cnn.com 12:00
Url Category PageRank
cnn.com News 0.9
bbc.com News 0.8
flickr.com Photos 0.7
espn.com Sports 0.9
Visits Url Info
Task: Find the top 10 most visited pages in each category
Pig Slides adapted from Olston et al. (SIGMOD 2008)
Pig Query Plan
Load Visits
Group by url
Foreach url
generate count
Load Url Info
Join on url
Group by category
Foreach category
generate top10(urls)
Pig Script
visits = load /data/visits as (user, url, time);
gVisits = group visits by url;
visitCounts = foreach gVisits generate url, count(visits);
urlInfo = load /data/urlInfo as (url, category, pRank);
visitCounts = join visitCounts by url, urlInfo by url;
gCategories = group visitCounts by category;
topUrls = foreach gCategories generate top(visitCounts,10);

store topUrls into /data/topUrls;
Load Visits
Group by url
Foreach url
generate count
Load Url Info
Join on url
Group by category
Foreach category
generate top10(urls)
Pig Script in Hadoop
Map
1
Reduce
1
Map
2
Reduce
2
Map
3
Reduce
3
Different Programming Models
Multitude of MapReduce hybrids, variants, etc.
Mostly research prototypes
A few commercial companies
Dryad/DryadLINQ (Microsoft)
Emerging Themes
Continuing quest for alternative programming models
Batch vs. real-time data processing
Continuing quest for better implementations
MapReduce as yet another tool
Growth of the Hadoop ecosystem
Evolving role of MapReduce and parallel databases

Questions?

AAAI2011 Tutorial Slides

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AAAI2011 Tutorial Slides

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Large-Scale Data Processing

Вам также может понравиться