Research on Efficient Algorithms for Intelligent Computing in Big Data Analytics
, et
03 févr. 2025
À propos de cet article
Publié en ligne: 03 févr. 2025
Reçu: 15 sept. 2024
Accepté: 04 janv. 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0020
Mots clés
© 2025 Xiguo Zhou et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Comparison of query execution time
Database | Unit: ms | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LUBM-5 | Hadoop HDFS | Cold | 235 | 9445 | 241 | 369 | 425 | 1491 | 299 | 365 | 14K | 277 |
Hot | 114 | 9188 | 159 | 152 | 194 | 513 | 109 | 142 | 14K | 152 | ||
Jena-Hbase | Cold | 20K | 11K | 60K | 4256 | 62K | 2378 | NA | NA | NA | 18K | |
Hot | 16K | 10K | 45K | 4024 | 9345 | 864 | NA | 322K | NA | 18K | ||
SHARD | Cold | 156K | 302K | 184K | 212K | 287K | 672K | 65K | 203K | 856K | 200K | |
Hot | 101K | 285K | 112K | 124K | 169K | 611K | 42K | 172K | 432K | 142K | ||
LUBM-50 | Hadoop HDFS | Cold | 244 | 9051 | 303 | 314 | 415 | 2003 | 511 | 425 | 14K | 363 |
Hot | 112 | 8879 | 115 | 164 | 185 | 1734 | 203 | 302 | 14K | 122 | ||
Jena-Hbase | - | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
SHARD | Cold | 188K | 415K | 224K | 306K | 179K | 406K | 206K | 108K | 425K | 174K | |
Hot | 116K | 315K | 189K | 177K | 133K | 342K | 166K | 77K | 348K | 130K | ||
LUBM-500 | Hadoop HDFS | Cold | 218 | 8974 | 266 | 273 | 231 | 18K | 237 | 321 | 15K | 227 |
Hot | 112 | 8546 | 105 | 130 | 121 | 17K | 133 | 201 | 15K | 102 | ||
Jena-Hbase | - | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
SHARD | Cold | 306K | 986K | 426K | 387K | 462K | 884K | 506K | 472K | 926K | 412K | |
Hot | 245K | 758K | 285K | 204K | 306K | 695K | 330K | 394K | 734K | 283K |
Hadoop HDFS index storage usage
LUBM-5 | LUBM-50 | LUBM-500 | |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 195.4MB | 2.0GB | 17.9GB |
Avg.±Std. | 10.25±1.68MB | 118.00±19.48MB | 1.02GB±203.45MB |
Comparison of clustering time cost of different parallel DBSCAN algorithms
Data set | Algorithm | Clustering time |
---|---|---|
R15 | Naive DBSCAN | 20.485s |
Spark DBSCAN | 17.065s | |
Jain | Naive DBSCAN | 18.746s |
Spark DBSCAN | 15.062s | |
Pathbased | Naive DBSCAN | 17.223s |
Spark DBSCAN | 16.012s | |
Aggregation | Naive DBSCAN | 15.462s |
Spark DBSCAN | 4.726s | |
D31 | Naive DBSCAN | 87.633s |
Spark DBSCAN | 40.745s |
Comparison of clustering result indexes of different parallel DBSCAN algorithms
Data set | Algorithm | Silhouette coefficient | Purity | Rand index | Adjusted Rand index | F1-score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R15 | Naive DBSCAN | 0.7658 | 0.9644 | 0.9685 | 0.9532 | 0.9412 |
Spark DBSCAN | 0.7346 | 0.9416 | 0.9602 | 0.9263 | 0.9331 | |
Jain | Naive DBSCAN | 0.3015 | 0.9745 | 0.4913 | 0.1026 | 0.2578 |
Spark DBSCAN | 0.3015 | 0.9745 | 0.4913 | 0.1026 | 0.2578 | |
Pathbased | Naive DBSCAN | 0.3562 | 0.9278 | 0.7016 | 0.1152 | 0.1723 |
Spark DBSCAN | 0.3562 | 0.9278 | 0.7016 | 0.1152 | 0.1723 | |
Aggregation | Naive DBSCAN | 0.3325 | 0.8244 | 0.8078 | 0.1605 | 0.2346 |
Spark DBSCAN | 0.3325 | 0.8244 | 0.8078 | 0.1605 | 0.2346 | |
D31 | Naive DBSCAN | 0.5815 | 0.9045 | 0.9952 | 0.8142 | 0.8156 |
Spark DBSCAN | 0.5685 | 0.8712 | 0.9896 | 0.7724 | 0.7789 |