How would I get a subset (say 100MB) of Wikipedia's pages? I've found you can get the whole dataset as XML but its more like 1 or 2 gigs; I don't need that much.
I want to experiment with implementing a map-reduce algorithm.
Having said that, if I could just find 100 megs worth of textual sample data from anywhere, that would also be good. E.g. the Stack Overflow database, if it's available, would possibly be a good size. I'm open to suggestions.
Edit: Any that aren't torrents? I can't get those at work.
The stackoverflow database is available for download.
Chris, you could just write a small program to hit the Wikipedia "Random Page" link until you get 100MB of web pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random. You'll want to discard any duplicates you might get, and you might also want to limit the number of requests you make per minute (though some fraction of the articles will be served up by intermediate web caches, not Wikipedia servers). But it should be pretty easy.
One option is to download the entire Wikipedia dump, and then use only part of it. You can either decompress the entire thing and then use a simple script to split the file into smaller files (e.g. here), or if you are worried about disk space, you can write a something a script that decompresses and splits on the fly, and then you can stop the decompressing process at any stage you want. Wikipedia Dump Reader can by your inspiration for decompressing and processing on the fly, if you're comfortable with python (look at mparser.py).
If you don't want to download the entire thing, you're left with the option of scraping. The Export feature might be helpful for this, and the wikipediabot was also suggested in this context.
If you wanted to get a copy of the stackoverflow database, you could do that from the creative commons data dump.
Out of curiosity, what are you using all this data for?
You could use a web crawler and scrape 100MB of data?
There are a lot of wikipedia dumps available. Why do you want to choose the biggest (english wiki)? Wikinews archives are much smaller.
One smaller subset of Wikipedia articles comprises the 'meta' wiki articles. This is in the same XML format as the entire article dataset, but smaller (around 400MB as of March 2019), so it can be used for software validation (for example testing GenSim scripts).
https://dumps.wikimedia.org/metawiki/latest/
You want to look for any files with the -articles.xml.bz2 suffix.
Related
I am working on a project which needs to deal with large seismic data of SEGY format (from several GB to TB). This data represents the 3D underground structure.
Data structure is like:
1st tract, 2,3,5,3,5,....,6
2nd tract, 5,6,5,3,2,....,3
3rd tract, 7,4,5,3,1,....,8
...
What I want to ask is, in order to read and deal with the data fast, do I have to convert the data into another form? Or it's better to read from the original SEGY file? And is there any existing C package to do that?
If you need to access it multiple times and
if you need to access it randomly and
if you need to access it fast
then load it to a database once.
Do not reinvent the wheel.
When dealing of data of that size, you may not want to convert it into another form unless you have to - though some software does do just that. I found a list of free geophysics software on Wikipedia that look promising; many are open source and read/write SEGY files.
Since you are a newbie to programming, you may want to consider if the Python library segpy suits your needs rather than a C/C++ option.
Several GB is rathe medium, if we are toking about poststack.
You may use segy and convert on the fly, you may invent your own format. It depends whot you needed to do. Without changing segy format it's enough to createing indexes to traces. If segy is saved as inlines - it's faster access throug inlines, although crossline access is not very bad.
If it is 3d seismic, the best way to have the same quick access to all inlines/crosslines is to have own format - based od beans, e.g 8x8 traces - loading all beans and selecting tarces access time may be very quick - 2-3 secends. Or you may use SSD disk, or 2,5x RAM as your SEGY.
To quickly access timeslices you have 2 ways - 3D beans or second file stored as timeslices (the quickes way). I did same kind of that 10 years ago - access time to 12 GB SEGY was acceptable - 2-3 seconds in all 3 directions.
SEGY in database? Wow ... ;)
The answer depends upon the type of data you need to extract from the SEG-Y file.
If you need to extract only the headers (Text header, Binary header, Extended Textual File headers and Trace headers) then they can be easily extracted from the SEG-Y file by opening the file as binary and extracting relevant information from the respective locations as mentioned in the data exchange formats (rev2). The extraction might depend upon the type of data (Post-stack or Pre-stack). Also some headers might require conversions from one format to another (e.g Text Headers are mostly encoded in EBCDIC format). The complete details about the byte locations and encoding formats can be read from the above documentation
The extraction of trace data is a bit tricky and depends upon various factors like the encoding, whether the no. of trace samples is mentioned in the trace headers, etc. A careful reading of the documentation and getting to know about the type of SEG data you are working on will surely make this task a lot easier.
Since you are working with the extracted data, I would recommend to use already existing libraries (segpy: one of the best python library I came across). There are also numerous free available SEG-Y readers, a very nice list has already been mentioned by Daniel Waechter; you can choose any one of them that suits your requirements and the type file format supported.
I recently tried to do something same using C++ (Although it has only been tested on post-stack data). The project can be found here.
I am beginning to experiment with using MapBox and TileMill, and what I would like to do is map 400,000 addresses in a CSV file which have been pre-geocoded. When I try to add this 100mb CSV file as a layer into MapBox, I receive an error telling me that the CSV file is greater than 20mb and apparently this is a problem.
Can someone point me in the right direction in terms of what is the best way to get these 400k records into TileMill? Eventually, I want to publish the map to the web, and I was planning to do that using MapBox. I saw a program for converting CSV to a shapefile, and wondering whether this is the best approach.
Hundreds of thousands of markers is a lot. In the free tier of Mapbox, there is a limit of two thousand features. Such a limit would not stop you from displaying those in Tilemill, but it would stop you from uploading them to mapbox.com.
For discussion of that limit, see here.
A simple strategy for reducing the markers is to restrict to the subset of features that lies within a smaller bounding box.
I don't think it will matter whether your features are expressed in geojson, shapefiles, csv, or other formats. The number of features is what's stopping you.
I have the same problem. I had to import a 22MB csv file into tilemill and got the same error.
Although I don't have a working answer for you, but I would think either:
Convert csv to SQLite export files http://www.mapbox.com/tilemill/docs/tutorials/sqlite-work/
Configure the buffer for tilemill (however I doubt this would be the best because my tilemill cant take 5 GB of memory when doing points/markers rendering, increasing the buffer would make things worse)
I will keep experimenting with the ideas, and update this thread as soon as I found something. Also, I am looking forward to the tillmill pros out here for the best working answer~!
Best
Does anyone know any more details about google's web-crawler (aka GoogleBot)? I was curious about what it was written in (I've made a few crawlers myself and am about to make another) and if it parses images and such. I'm assuming it does somewhere along the line, b/c the images in images.google.com are all resized. It also wouldn't surprise me if it was all written in Python and if they used all their own libraries for most everything, including html/image/pdf parsing. Maybe they don't though. Maybe it's all written in C/C++. Thanks in advance-
you can find a bit about how googlebot works here:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=158587
for example the "fetch as googlebot" tool lets you see a page as Googlebot sees it.
The crawler is very likely written in C or C++, at least backrub's crawler was written in one of these.
Be aware that the crawler only takes a snapshot of the page, then stores it in a temporary database for later processing. The indexing and other attached algorithms will extract the data, for example the image references.
Officially allowed languages at Google, I think, are Python/C++/Java.
The bot likely uses all 3 for different tasks.
Because the open source geo-coders cannot begin to compare to Google's or even Yahoo's, I would like to start a project to create a good open source geo-coder. Just to clarify, a geo-coder takes some text (usually with some constraints) and returns one or more lat/lon pairs.
I realize that this is a difficult and garguntuan task, so I am wondering how you might get started. What would you read? What algorithms would you familiarize yourself with? What code would you review?
And also, assuming you were going to develop this very agilely, what would you want the first prototype to be able to do?
EDIT: Let's set aside the data question for now. I am going to use OpenStreetMap data, along with a database of waypoints that I have. I would later plan to include other data sets as well, and I realize the geo-coder would be inherently limited by the quality of the original data.
The first (and probably blocking) problem would be: where do you get your data from? (unless you are willing to pay thousands of dollars for proprietary sets).
You could build a geocoding-api on top of OpenStreetMap (they publish their data in dumps on a regular basis) I guess, but that one was still very incomplete last time I checked.
Algorithms are easy. Good mapping data, however, is expensive. Very expensive.
Google drove their cars all over the world, collecting this data among other things.
From a .NET point of view these articles might be interesting for you:
Writing Your Own GPS Applications: Part I
Writing Your Own GPS Applications: Part 2
Writing GIS and Mapping Software for .NET
I've only glanced at the articles but they've been on CodeProject's 'Most Popular' list for a long time.
And maybe this CodePlex project which the author of the articles above made available.
I would start at the absolute beginning by figuring out how you're going to get the data that matches a street address with a geocode. Either Google had people going around with GPS units, OR they got the information from some existing source. That existing source may have been... (all guesses)
The Postal Service
Some existing maps(printed)
A bunch of enthusiastic users that were early adopters of GPS technology who ere more than willing to enter in street addresses and GPS coordinates
Some government entity (or entities)
Their own satellites
etc
I guess what I'm getting at is the information was either imported from somewhere or was input by someone via some interface. As my starting point I would look at how to get that information. In an open source situation, you may be able to get a bunch of enthusiastic people to enter information.
So for my first prototype, boring as it would be, I would create a form for entering information.
Then you need to know the math for figuring out the closest distance (as the crow flies). From there, try to figure out how to include roads. (My guess is you would have to have data point for each and every curve, where you hold the geocode location of the curve, and the angle of the road on a north/south and east/west vector. You'd probably need to take incline into account, too to get accurate road measurements.)
That's just where I'd start.
But in all honesty, I wouldn't even start on this. Other programmers have done it already, I'm more interested in what hasn't already been done.
get my free raw data from somewhere like http://ipinfodb.com/ip_database.php
load it into a database, denormalizing for fast lookups
design my API
build it out as a RESTful web service
return results in varying formats: JSON, XML, CSV, raw text
The first prototype should accept a ZIP code and return lat/lon in raw text.
Last night before going to bed, I browsed through the Scalar Data section of Learning Perl again and came across the following sentence:
the ability to have any character in a string means you can create, scan, and manipulate raw binary data as strings.
An idea immediately hit me that I could actually let Perl scan the pictures that I have stored on my hard disk to check if they contain the string Adobe. It seems by doing so, I can tell which of them have been photoshopped. So I tried to implement the idea and came up with the following code:
#!perl
use autodie;
use strict;
use warnings;
{
local $/="\n\n";
my $dir = 'f:/TestPix/';
my #pix = glob "$dir/*";
foreach my $file (#pix) {
open my $pic,'<', "$file";
while(<$pic>) {
if (/Adobe/) {
print "$file\n";
}
}
}
}
Excitingly, the code seems to be really working and it does the job of filtering out the pictures that have been photoshopped. But problem is many pictures are edited by other utilities. I think I'm kind of stuck there. Do we have some simple but universal method to tell if a digital picture has been edited or not, something like
if (!= /the origianl format/) {...}
Or do we simply have to add more conditions? like
if (/Adobe/|/ACDSee/|/some other picture editors/)
Any ideas on this? Or am I oversimplifying due to my miserably limited programming knowledge?
Thanks, as always, for any guidance.
Your best bet in Perl is probably ExifTool. This gives you access to whatever non-image information is embedded into the image. However, as other people said, it's possible to strip this information out, of course.
I'm not going to say there is absolutely no way to detect alterations in an image, but the problem is extremely difficult.
The only person I know of who claims to have an answer is Dr. Neal Krawetz, who claims that digitally altered parts of an image will have different compression error rates from the original portions. He claims that re-saving a JPEG at different quality levels will highlight these differences.
I have not found this to be the case, in my investigations, but perhaps you might have better results.
No. There is no functional distinction between a perfectly edited image, and one which was the way it is from the start - it's all just a bag of pixels in the end, after all, and any other metadata you can remove or forge all you want.
The name of the graphics program used to edit the image is not part of the image data itself but of something called meta data - which may be stored in the image file but, as others have noted, is neither required (so some programs may not store it, some may allow you an option of not storing it) nor reliable - if you forged an image, you might have forged the meta data as well.
So the answer to your question is "no, there's no way to universally tell if the pic was edited or not, although some image editing software may write its signature into the image file and it'll be left there by carelessness of the editing person.
If you're inclined to learn more about image processing in Perl, you could take a look at some of the excellent modules CPAN has to offer:
Image::Magick - read, manipulate and write of a large number of image file formats
GD - create colour drawings using a large number of graphics primitives, and emit the drawings in various formats.
GD::Graph - create charts
GD::Graph3d - create 3D Graphs with GD and GD::Graph
However, there are other utilities available for identifying various image formats. It's more of a question for Super User, but for various unix distros you can use file to identify many different types of files, and for MacOSX, Graphic Converter has never let me down. (It was even able to open the bizarre multi-file X-ray of my cat's shattered pelvis that I got on a disc from the vet.)
How would you know what the original format was? I'm pretty sure there's no guaranteed way to tell if an image has been modified.
I can just open the file (with my favourite programming language and filesystem API) and just write whatever I want into that file willy-nilly. As long as I don't screw something up with the file format, you'd never know it happened.
Heck, I could print the image out and then scan it back in; how would you tell it from an original?
As other's have stated, there is no way to know if the image was doctored. I'm guessing what you basically want to know is the difference between a realistic photograph and one that has been enhanced or modified.
There's always the option of running some extremely complex image recognition algorithm that would analyze every pixel in your image and do some very complicated stuff to determine if the image was doctored or not. This solution would probably involve AI which would examine millions of photos that are both doctored and those that are not and learn from them. However, this is more of a theoretical solution and isn't very practical... you would probably only see it in movies. It would be extremely complex to develop and probably take years. And even if you did get something like this to work, it probably still wouldn't be 100% correct all the time. I'm guessing AI technology still isn't at that level and could take a while until it is.
A not-commonly-known feature of exiftool allows you to recognize the originating software through an analysis of the JPEG quantization tables (not relying on image metadata). It recognizes tables written by many applications. Note that some cameras may use the same quantization tables as some applications, so this isn't a 100% solution, but it is worth looking into. Here is an example of exiftool run on two images, the first was edited by photoshop.
> exiftool -jpegdigest a.jpg b.jpg
======== a.jpg
JPEG Digest : Adobe Photoshop, Quality 10
======== b.jpg
JPEG Digest : Canon EOS 30D/40D/50D/300D, Normal
2 image files read
This will work even if the metadata has been removed.
There is existing software out there which uses various techniques (compression artifacting, comparison to signature profiles in a database of cameras, etc.) to analyze the actual image data for evidence of alteration. If you have access to such software and the software available to you provides an API for external access to these analysis functions, then there's a decent chance that a Perl module exists which will interface with that API and, if no such module exists, it could probably be created rather quickly.
In theory, it would also be possible to implement the image analysis code directly in native Perl, but I'm not aware of anyone having done so and I expect that you'd be better off writing something that low-level and processor-intensive in a fully-compiled language (e.g., C/C++) rather than in Perl.
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html
is a tool that does the job almost good
If there has been any cloning , there is a variation in the pixel density..or concentration which sometimes shows up.. upon manual inspection
a Photoshop cloned area will have even pixel density(my meaning is variation of Pixels wrt a scanned image)