Frontiers of Computer Science

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 919–933 | Cite as

RDF partitioning for scalable SPARQL query processing

  • Xiaoyan Wang
  • Tao Yang
  • Jinchuan Chen
  • Long He
  • Xiaoyong Du
Research Article

Abstract

The volume of RDF data increases dramatically within recent years, while cloud computing platforms like Hadoop are supposed to be a good choice for processing queries over huge data sets for their wonderful scalability. Previous work on evaluating SPARQL queries with Hadoop mainly focus on reducing the number of joins through careful split of HDFS files and algorithms for generating Map/Reduce jobs. However, the way of partitioning RDF data could also affect system performance. Specifically, a good partitioning solution would greatly reduce or even totally avoid cross-node joins, and significantly cut down the cost in query evaluation. Based on HadoopDB, this work processes SPARQL queries in a hybrid architecture, where Map/Reduce takes charge of the computing tasks, and RDF query engines like RDF-3X store the data and execute join operations. According to the analysis of query workloads, this work proposes a novel algorithm for automatically partitioning RDF data and an approximate solution to physically place the partitions in order to reduce data redundancy. It also discusses how to make a good trade-off between query evaluation efficiency and data redundancy. All of these proposed approaches have been evaluated by extensive experiments over large RDF data sets.

Keywords

RDF data data partitioning SPARQL query 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cui B, Mei H, Ooi B. Big data: the driver for innovation in databases. National Science Review, 2014, 1(1): 27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Husain M, McGlothlin J, Masud M, Khan L, Thuraisingham B. Heuristics based query processing for large RDF graphs using cloud computing. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2011, 23(9): 1312–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Myung J, Yeon J, Lee S. Sparql basic graph pattern processing with iterative mapreduce. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Massive Data Analytics on the Cloud. 2010, 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agrawal S, Narasayya V, Yang B. Integrating vertical and horizontal partitioning into automated physical database design. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 2004, 359–370Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pavlo A, Curino V, Zdonik S. Skew-aware automatic database partitioning in shared-nothing parallel OLTP systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on management of Data. 2012, 61–72Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang C, Kurc T, Sussman A, Catalyurek U, Saltz J. A hypergraphbased workload partitioning strategy for parallel data aggregation. In: Proceedings of the 11th SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, 2001Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abouzeid A, Bajda-Pawlikowski K, Abadi D, Silberschatz A, Rasin A. Hadoopdb: an architectural hybrid of mapreduce and DBMS technologies for analytical workloads. The Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2009, 2(1): 992–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neumann T, Weikum G. RDF-3X: a risc-style engine for RDF. The Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2008, 1(1): 647–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang J, Abadi D, Ren K. Scalable SPARQL querying of large RDF graphs. The Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2011, 4(11): 1123–1134Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andreev K, Räcke H. Balanced graph partitioning. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures. 2004, 120–124Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo Y B, Pan Z X, Heflin J. Lubm: A benchmark for owl knowledge base systems. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2005, 3(2): 158–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang T, Chen J, Wang X, Chen Y, Du X. Efficient SPARQL Query Evaluation via Automatic Data Partitioning. Technical Report. 2012Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanghavi S, Shah D, Willsky A. Message passing for maximum weight independent set. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2009, 55(11): 4822–4834MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cormen T, Leiserson C, Rivest R, Stein C. Introduction to Algorithms. New York The MIT Press, 2001MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Getoor L, Taskar B, Koller D. Selectivity estimation using probabilistic models. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 2001, 461–472Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilkinson K, Sayers C, Kuno H, Reynolds D. Efficient RDF storage and retrieval in Jena2. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference. 2003, 131–150Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Du F, Chen Y, Du X. Partitioned indexes for entity search over RDF knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications. 2012, 141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Górlitz O, Thimm M, Staab S. SPLODGE: Systematic generation of SPARQL benchmark queries for linked open data. In: Proceedings of International Semantic Web-ISWC. 2012, 116–132Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim H, Ravindra P, Anyanwu K. Scan-sharing for optimizing RDF graph pattern matching on mapreduce. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing. 2012, 139–146Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zeng K, Yang J, Wang H, Shao B, Wang Z. A distributed graph engine for web scale RDF data. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. 2013, 265–276Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rao J, Zhang C, Megiddo N, Lohman G. Automating physical database design in a parallel database. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 2002, 558–569Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoyan Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tao Yang
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jinchuan Chen
    • 2
    • 4
  • Long He
    • 1
    • 4
  • Xiaoyong Du
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.School of InformationRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Engineering of Ministry of EducationRenmin UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Information Centerthe Supreme People’s CourtBeijingChina
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Software Development EnvironmentBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations