I am new in storm framework(https://storm.incubator.apache.org/about/integrates.html),
I test locally with my code and I think If I remove stop words, it will perform well, but i search on line and I can't see any example that removing stopwords in storm.
If the size of the stop words list is small enough to fit in memory, the most straighforward approach would be to simply filter the tuples with an implementation of storm Filter that knows that list. This Filter could possibly poll the DB every so often to get the latest list of stop words if this list evolves over time.
If the size of the stop words list is bigger, then you can use a QueryFunction, called from your topology with the stateQuery function, which would:
receive a batch of tuples to check (say 10000 at a time)
build a single query from their content and look up corresponding stop words in persistence
attach a boolean to each tuple specifying what to with each one
+ add a Filter right after that to filter based on that boolean.
And if you feel adventurous:
Another and faster approach would be to use a bloom filter approximation. I heard that Algebird is meant to provide this kind of functionality and targets both Scalding and Storm (how cool is that?), but I don't know how stable it is nor do I have any experience in practically plugging it into Storm (maybe Sunday if it's rainy...).
Also, Cascading (which is not directly related to Storm but has a very similar set of primitive abstractions on top of map reduce) suggests in this tutorial a method based on left joins. Such joins exist in Storm and the right branch could possibly be fed with a FixedBatchSpout emitting all stop words every time, or even a custom spout that reads the latest version of the list of stop words from persistence every time, so maybe that would work too? Maybe? This also assumes the size of the stop words list is relatively small though.
Related
The concept of map-reduce is very familiar. It seems like a great fit for a problem I'm trying to solve, but it's either missing something (or I lack enough understanding of the concept).
I have a stream of items, structured as follows:
{
"jobId": 777,
"numberOfParts": 5,
"data": "some data..."
}
I want to do a map-reduce on many such items.
My mapping operation is straightforward - take the jobId.
My reduce operation is irrelevant for this phase, but all we know is that it takes multiple strings (the "some data..." part) and somehow reduces them to a single object.
The only problem is - I need all five parts of this job to complete before I can reduce all the strings into a single object. Every item has a "numberOfParts" property which indicates the number of items I must have before I apply the reduce operation. The items are not ordered, therefore I don't have a "partId" field.
Long story short - I need to apply some kind of a waiting mechanism that waits for all parts of the job to complete before initiating the reduce operation, and I need this waiting mechanism to rely on a value that exists within the payload (therefore solutions like kafka wouldn't work).
Is there a way to do that, hopefully using a single tool/framework?
I only want to write the map/reduce part and the "waiting" logic, the rest I believe should come out of the box.
**** EDIT ****
I'm currently in the design phase of the project and therefore not using any framework (such as spark, hadoop, etc...)
I asked this because I wanted to find out the best way to tackle this problem.
"Waiting" is not the correct approach.
Assuming your jobId is the key, and data contains some number of parts (zero or more), then you must have multiple reducers. One that gathers all parts of the same job, then another that processes all jobs with a collection of parts greater than or equal to numberOfParts while ignoring others
I'm having problems with the insertion using gremlin to Neptune.
I am trying to insert many nodes and edges, potentially hundred thousands of nodes and edges, with checking for existence.
Currently, we are using inject to insert the nodes, and the problem is that it is slow.
After running the explain command, we figured out that the problem was the coalesce and the where steps - it takes more than 99.9% of the run duration.
I want to insert each node and edge only if it doesn’t exist, and that’s why I am using the coalesce and where steps.
For example, the query we use to insert nodes with inject:
properties_list = [{‘uid’:’1642’},{‘uid’:’1322’}…]
g.inject(properties_list).unfold().as_('node')
.sideEffect(__.V().where(P.eq('node')).by(‘uid).fold()
.coalesce(__.unfold(), __.addV(label).property(Cardinality.single,'uid','1')))
With 1000 nodes in the graph and properties_list with 100 elements, running the query above takes around 30 seconds, and it gets slower as the number of nodes in the graph increases.
Running a naive injection with the same environment as the query above, without coalesce and where, takes less than 1 second.
I’d like to hear your suggestions and to know what are the best practices for inserting many nodes and edges (with checking for existence).
Thank you very much.
If you have a set of IDs that you want to check for existence, you can speed up the query significantly by also providing just a list of IDs to the query and calculating the intersection of the ones that exist upfront. Then, having calculated the set that need updates you can just apply them in one go. This will make a big difference. The reason you are running into problems is that the mid traversal V has a lot of work to do. In general it would be better to use actual IDs rather than properties (UID in your case). If that is not an option the same technique will work for property based IDs. The steps are:
Using inject or sideEffect insert the IDs to be found as one list and the corresponding map containing the changes to conditionally be applied in a separate map.
Find the intersection of the ones that exist and those that do not.
Using that set of non existing ones, apply the updates using the values in the set to index into your map.
Here is a concrete example. I used the graph-notebook for this but you can do the same thing in code:
Given:
ids = "['1','2','9998','9999']"
and
data = "[['id':'1','value':'XYZ'],['id':'9998','value':'ABC'],['id':'9999','value':'DEF']]"
we can do something like this:
g.V().hasId(${ids}).id().fold().as('exist').
constant(${data}).
unfold().as('d').
where(without('exist')).by('id').by()
which correctly finds the ones that do not already exist:
{'id': 9998, 'value': 'ABC'}
{'id': 9999, 'value': 'DEF'}
You can use this pattern to construct your conditional inserts a lot more efficiently (I hope :-) ). So to add the new vertices you might do:
g.V().hasId(${ids}).id().fold().as('exist').
constant(${data}).
unfold().as('d').
where(without('exist')).by('id').by().
addV('test').
property(id,select('d').select('id')).
property('value',select('d').select('value'))
v[9998]
v[9999]
As a side note, we are adding two new steps to Gremlin - mergeV and mergeE that will allow this to be done much more easily and in a more declarative style. Those new steps should be part of the TinkerPop 3.6 release.
I have data I have to join at the record level. For example data about users is coming in from different source systems but there is not a common primary key or user identifier
Example Data
Source System 1:
{userid = 123, first_name="John", last_name="Smith", many other columns...}
Source System 2:
{userid = EFCBA-09DA0, fname="J.", lname="Smith", many other columns...}
There are about 100 rules I can use to compare one record to another
to see if customer in source system 1 is the same as source system 2.
Some rules may be able to infer record values and add data to a master record about a customer.
Because some rules may infer/add data to any particular record, the rules must be re-applied again when a record changes.
We have millions of records per day we'd have to unify
Apache Beam / Dataflow implementation
Apache beam DAG is by definition acyclic but I could just republish the data through pubsub to the same DAG to make it a cyclic algorithm.
I could create a PCollection of hashmaps that continuously do a self join against all other elements but this seems it's probably an inefficient method
Immutability of a PCollection is a problem if I want to be constantly modifying things as it goes through the rules. This sounds like it would be more efficient with Flink Gelly or Spark GraphX
Is there any way you may know in dataflow to process such a problem efficiently?
Other thoughts
Prolog: I tried running on subset of this data with a subset of the rules but swi-prolog did not seem scalable, and I could not figure out how I would continuously emit the results to other processes.
JDrools/Jess/Rete: Forward chaining would be perfect for the inference and efficient partial application, but this algorithm is more about applying many many rules to individual records, rather than inferring record information from possibly related records.
Graph database: Something like neo4j or datomic would be nice since joins are at the record level rather than row/column scans, but I don't know if it's possible in beam to do something similar
BigQuery or Spanner: Brute forcing these rules in SQL and doing full table scans per record is really slow. It would be much preferred to keep the graph of all records in memory and compute in-memory. We could also try to concat all columns and run multiple compare and update across all columns
Or maybe there's a more standard way to solving these class of problems.
It is hard to say what solution works best for you from what I can read so far. I would try to split the problem further and try to tackle different aspects separately.
From what I understand, the goal is to combine together the matching records that represent the same thing in different sources:
records come from a number of sources:
it is logically the same data but formatted differently;
there are rules to tell if the records represent the same entity:
collection of rules is static;
So, the logic probably roughly goes like:
read a record;
try to find existing matching records;
if matching record found:
update it with new data;
otherwise save the record for future matching;
repeat;
To me this looks very high level and there's probably no single 'correct' solution at this level of detail.
I would probably try to approach this by first understanding it in more detail (maybe you already do), few thoughts:
what are the properties of the data?
are there patterns? E.g. when one system publishes something, do you expect something else from other systems?
what are the requirements in general?
latency, consistency, availability, etc;
how data is read from the sources?
can all the systems publish the records in batches in files, submit them into PubSub, does your solution need to poll them, etc?
can the data be read in parallel or is it a single stream?
then the main question of how can you efficiently match a record in general will probably look different under different assumptions and requirements as well. For example I would think about:
can you fit all data in memory;
are your rules dynamic. Do they change at all, what happens when they do;
can you split the data into categories that can be stored separately and matched efficiently, e.g. if you know you can try to match some things by id field, some other things by hash of something, etc;
do you need to match against all of historical/existing data?
can you have some quick elimination logic to not do expensive checks?
what is the output of the solution? What are the requirements for the output?
I am saving the fingerprints in a field "blob", then wonder if the only way to compare these impressions is retrieving all prints saved in the database and then create a vector to check, using the function "identify_finger"? You can check directly from the database using a SELECT?
I'm working with libfprint. In this code the verification is done in a vector:
def test_identify():
cur = DB.cursor()
cur.execute('select id, fp from print')
id = []
gallary = []
for row in cur.fetchall():
data = pyfprint.pyf.fp_print_data_from_data(str(row['fp']))
gallary.append(pyfprint.Fprint(data_ptr = data))
id.append(row['id'])
n, fp, img = FingerDevice.identify_finger(gallary)
There are two fundamentally different ways to use a fingerprint database. One is to verify the identity of a person who is known through other means, and one is to search for a person whose identity is unknown.
A simple library such as libfprint is suitable for the first case only. Since you're using it to verify someone you can use their identity to look up a single row from the database. Perhaps you've scanned more than one finger, or perhaps you've stored multiple scans per finger, but it will still be a small number of database blobs returned.
A fingerprint search algorithm must be designed from the ground up to narrow the search space, to compare quickly, and to rank the results and deal with false positives. Just as a Google search may come up with pages totally unrelated to what you're looking for, so too will a fingerprint search. There are companies that devote their entire existence to solving this problem.
Another way would be to have a mysql plugin that knows how to work with fingerprint images and select based on what you are looking for.
I really doubt that there is such a thing.
You could also try to parallelize the fingerprint comparation, ie - calling:
FingerDevice.identify_finger(gallary)
in parallel, on different cores/machines
You can't check directly from the database using a SELECT because each scan is different and will produce different blobs. libfprint does the hard work of comparing different scans and judging if they are from the same person or not
What zinking and Tudor are saying, I think, is that if you understand how does that judgement process works (which is by the way, by minutiae comparison) you can develop a method of storing the relevant data for the process (the *minutiae, maybe?) in the database and then a method for fetching the relevant values -- maybe a kind of index or some type of extension to the database.
In other words, you would have to reimplement the libfprint algorithms in a more complex (and beautiful) way, instead of just accepting the libfprint method of comparing the scan with all stored fingerprint in a loop.
other solutions for speeding your program
use C:
I only know sufficient C to write kind of hello-world programs, but it was not hard to write code in pure C to use the fp_identify_finger_img function of libfprint and I can tell you it is much faster than pyfprint.identify_finger.
You can continue doing the enrollment part of the stuff in python. I do it.
use a time / location based SELECT:
If you know your users will scan their fingerprints with more probability at some time than other time, or at some place than other place (maybe arriving at work at some time and scanning their fingers, or leaving, or entering the building by one gate, or by other), you can collect data (at each scan) for measuring the probabilities and creating parallel tables to sort the users for their probability of arriving at each time and location.
We know that identify_finger tries to identify fingers in a loop with the fingerprint objects you provided in a list, so we can use that and give it the objects sorted in a way in which the more likely user for that time and that location will be the first in the list and so on.
I need to create a search index for a collection of HTML pages.
I have no experience in implementing a search index at all, so any general information how to build one, what information to store, how to implement advanced searches such as "entire phrase", ranking of results etc.
I'm not afraid to build it myself, though I'd be happy to reuse an existing component (or use one to get started with a prototype). I am looking for a solution accessible from C++, preferrably without requiring additional installations at runtime. The content is static (so it makes sense to aggregate search information), but a search might have to accumulate results from multiple such repositories.
I can make a few educated guesses, though: create a map word ==> pages for all (relevant) words, a rank can be assigned to the mapping by promincence (h1 > h2 > ... > <p>) and proximity to top. Advanced searches could be built on top of that: searching for phrase "homo sapiens" could list all pages that contain "homo" and "sapiens", then scan all pages returned for locations where they occur together. However, there are a lot of problematic scenarios and unanswered questions, so I am looking for references to what should be a huge amount of existing work that somehow escapes my google-fu.
[edit for bounty]
The best resource I found until now is this and the links from there.
I do have an imlementation roadmap for an experimental system, however, I am still looking for:
Reference material regarding index creation and individual steps
available implementations of individual steps
reusable implementations (with above environment restrictions)
This process is generally known as information retrieval. You'll probably find this online book helpful.
Existing libraries
Here are two existing solutions that can be fully integrated into an application without requiring a separate process (I believe both will compile with VC++).
Xapian is mature and may do much of what you need, from indexing to ranked retrieval. Separate HTML parsing would be required because, AFAIK, it does not parse html (it has a companion program Omega, which is a front end for indexing web sites).
Lucene is a index/searching Apache library in Java, with an official pre-release C version lucy, and an unofficial C++ version CLucene.
Implementing information retrieval
If the above options are not viable for some reason, here's some info on the individual steps of building and using an index. Custom solutions can go from simple to very sophisticated, depending what you need for your application. I've broken the process into 5 steps
HTML processing
Text processing
Indexing
Retrieval
Ranking
HTML Processing
There are two approaches here
Stripping The page you referred to discusses a technique generally known as stripping, which involves removing all the html elements that won't be displayed and translating others to their display form. Personally, I'd preprocess using perl and index the resulting text files. But for an integrated solution, particularly one where you want to record significance tags (e.g. <h1>, <h2>), you probably want to role your own. Here is a partial implementation of a C++ stripping routine (appears in Thinking in C++ , final version of book here), that you could build from.
Parsing A level up in complexity from stripping is html parsing, which would help in your case for recording significance tags. However, a good C++ HTML parser is hard to find. Some options might be htmlcxx (never used it, but active and looks promising) or hubbub (C library, part of NetSurf, but claims to be portable).
If you are dealing with XHTML or are willing to use an HTML-to-XML converter, you can use one of the many available XML parsers. But again, HTML-to-XML converters are hard to find, the only one I know of is HTML Tidy. In addition to conversion to XHTML, its primary purpose is to fix missing/broken tags, and it has an API that could possibly be used to integrate it into an application. Given XHTML documents, there are many good XML parsers, e.g. Xerces-C++ and tinyXML.
Text Processing
For English at least, processing text to words is pretty straight forward. There are a couple of complications when search is involved though.
Stop words are words known a priori not to provide a useful distinction between documents in the set, such as articles and propositions. Often these words are not indexed and filtered from query streams. There are many stop word lists available on the web, such as this one.
Stemming involves preprocessing documents and queries to identify the root of each word to better generalize a search. E.g. searching for "foobarred" should yield "foobarred", "foobarring", and "foobar". The index can be built and searched on roots alone. The two general approaches to stemming are dictionary based (lookups from word ==> root) and algorithm based. The Porter algorithm is very common and several implementations are available, e.g. C++ here or C here. Stemming in the Snowball C library supports several languages.
Soundex encoding One method to make search more robust to spelling errors is to encode words with a phonetic encoding. Then when queries have phonetic errors, they will still map directly to indexed words. There are a lot of implementations around, here's one.
Indexing
The map word ==> page data structure is known as an inverted index. Its inverted because its often generated from a forward index of page ==> words. Inverted indexes generally come in two flavors: inverted file index, which map words to each document they occur in, and full inverted index, which map words to each position in each document they occur in.
The important decision is what backend to use for the index, some possibilities are, in order of ease of implementation:
SQLite or Berkly DB - both of these are database engines with C++ APIs that integrated into a project without requiring a separate server process. Persistent databases are essentially files, so multiple index sets can be search by just changing the associated file. Using a DBMS as a backend simplifies index creation, updating and searching.
In memory data structure - if your using a inverted file index that is not prohibitively large (memory consumption and time to load), this could be implemented as a std::map<std::string,word_data_class>, using boost::serialization for persistence.
On disk data structure - I've heard of blazingly fast results using memory mapped files for this sort of thing, YMMV. Having an inverted file index would involve having two index files, one representing words with something like struct {char word[n]; unsigned int offset; unsigned int count; };, and the second representing (word, document) tuples with just unsigned ints (words implicit in the file offset). The offset is the file offset for the first document id for the word in the second file, count is the number of document ids associate with that word (number of ids to read from the second file). Searching would then reduce to a binary search through the first file with a pointer into a memory mapped file. The down side is the need to pad/truncate words to get a constant record size.
The procedure for indexing depends on which backend you use. The classic algorithm for generating a inverted file index (detailed here) begins with reading through each document and extending a list of (page id, word) tuples, ignoring duplicate words in each document. After all documents are processed, sort the list by word, then collapsed into (word, (page id1, page id2, ...)).
The mifluz gnu library implements inverted indexes w/ storage, but without document or query parsing. GPL, so may not be a viable option, but will give you an idea of the complexities involved for an inverted index that supports a large number of documents.
Retrieval
A very common method is boolean retrieval, which is simply the union/intersection of documents indexed for each of the query words that are joined with or/and, respectively. These operations are efficient if the document ids are stored in sorted order for each term, so that algorithms like std::set_union or std::set_intersection can be applied directly.
There are variations on retrieval, wikipedia has an overview, but standard boolean is good for many/most application.
Ranking
There are many methods for ranking the documents returned by boolean retrieval. Common methods are based on the bag of words model, which just means that the relative position of words is ignored. The general approach is to score each retrieved document relative to the query, and rank documents based on their calculated score. There are many scoring methods, but a good starting place is the term frequency-inverse document frequency formula.
The idea behind this formula is that if a query word occurs frequently in a document, that document should score higher, but a word that occurs in many documents is less informative so this word should be down weighted. The formula is, over query terms i=1..N and document j
score[j] = sum_over_i(word_freq[i,j] * inv_doc_freq[i])
where the word_freq[i,j] is the number of occurrences of word i in document j, and
inv_doc_freq[i] = log(M/doc_freq[i])
where M is the number of documents and doc_freq[i] is the number of documents containing word i. Notice that words that occur in all documents will not contribute to the score. A more complex scoring model that is widely used is BM25, which is included in both Lucene and Xapian.
Often, effective ranking for a particular domain is obtained by adjusting by trial and error. A starting place for adjusting rankings by heading/paragraph context could be inflating word_freq for a word based on heading/paragraph context, e.g. 1 for a paragraph, 10 for a top level heading. For some other ideas, you might find this paper interesting, where the authors adjusted BM25 ranking for positional scoring (the idea being that words closer to the beginning of the document are more relevant than words toward the end).
Objective quantification of ranking performance is obtained by precision-recall curves or mean average precision, detailed here. Evaluation requires an ideal set of queries paired with all the relevant documents in the set.
Depending on the size and number of the static pages, you might want to look at an already existent search solution.
"How do you implement full-text search for that 10+ million row table, keep up with the load, and stay relevant? Sphinx is good at those kinds of riddles."
I would choose the Sphinx engine for full text searching. The licence is GPL but the also have a commercial version available. It is meant to be run stand-alone [2], but it can also be embedded into applications by extracting the needed functionality (be it indexing[1], searching [3], stemming, etc).
The data should be obtained by parsing the input HTML files and transforming them to plain-text by using a parser like libxml2's HTMLparser (I haven't used it, but they say it can parse even malformed HTML). If you aren't bound to C/C++ you could take a look at Beautiful Soup.
After obtaining the plain-texts, you could store them in a database like MySQL or PostgreSQL. If you want to keep everything embedded you should go with sqlite.
Note that Sphinx doesn't work out-of-the-box with sqlite, but there is an attempt to add support (sphinx-sqlite3).
I would attack this with a little sqlite database. You could have tables for 'page', 'term' and 'page term'. 'Page' would have columns like id, text, title and url. 'Term' would have a column containing a word, as well as the primary ID. 'Page term' would have foreign keys to a page ID and a term ID, and could also store the weight, calculated from the distance from the top and the number of occurrences (or whatever you want).
Perhaps a more efficient way would be to only have two tables - 'page' as before, and 'page term' which would have the page ID, the weight, and a hash of the term word.
An example query - you want to search for "foo". You hash "foo", then query all page term rows that have that term hash. Sort by descending weight and show the top ten results.
I think this should query reasonably quickly, though it obviously depends on the number and size of the pages in question. Sqlite isn't difficult to bundle and shouldn't need an additional installation.
Ranking pages is the really tricky bit here. With a large sample of pages you can use links quite a lot in working out ranks. Other wise you need to check how words seem to be placed, and also making sure your engine doesn't get fooled by 'dictionary' pages.
Good luck!