Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userThe LDBC Social Network Benchmark
70
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
G\\'abor Sz\\'arnyas
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The Linked Data Benchmark Councils Social Network Benchmark (LDBC SNB) is an effort intended to test various functionalities of systems used for graph-like data management. For this, LDBC SNB uses the recognizable scenario of operating a social network, characterized by its graph-shaped data. LDBC SNB consists of two workloads that focus on different functionalities: the Interactive workload (interactive transactional queries) and the Business Intelligence workload (analytical queries). This document contains the definition of the Interactive Workload and the first draft of the Business Intelligence Workload. This includes a detailed explanation of the data used in the LDBC SNB benchmark, a detailed description for all queries, and instructions on how to generate the data and run the benchmark with the provided software.
rate research
Read More
In this document, we describe LDBC Graphalytics, an industrial-grade benchmark for graph analysis platforms. The main goal of Graphalytics is to enable the fair and objective comparison of graph analysis platforms. Due to the diversity of bottlenecks and performance issues such platforms need to address, Graphalytics consists of a set of selected deterministic algorithms for full-graph analysis, standard graph datasets, synthetic dataset generators, and reference output for validation purposes. Its test harness produces deep metrics that quantify multiple kinds of systems scalability, weak and strong, and robustness, such as failures and performance variability. The benchmark also balances comprehensiveness with runtime necessary to obtain the deep metrics. The benchmark comes with open-source software for generating performance data, for validating algorithm results, for monitoring and sharing performance data, and for obtaining the final benchmark result as a standard performance report.
Social groups are fundamental building blocks of human societies. While our social interactions have always been constrained by geography, it has been impossible, due to practical difficulties, to evaluate the nature of this restriction on social group structure. We construct a social network of individuals whose most frequent geographical locations are also known. We also classify the individuals into groups according to a community detection algorithm. We study the variation of geographical span for social groups of varying sizes, and explore the relationship between topological positions and geographic positions of their members. We find that small social groups are geographically very tight, but become much more clumped when the group size exceeds about 30 members. Also, we find no correlation between the topological positions and geographic positions of individuals within network communities. These results suggest that spreading processes face distinct structural and spatial constraints.
Machine learning (ML) needs industry-standard performance benchmarks to support design and competitive evaluation of the many emerging software and hardware solutions for ML. But ML training presents three unique benchmarking challenges absent from other domains: optimizations that improve training throughput can increase the time to solution, training is stochastic and time to solution exhibits high variance, and software and hardware systems are so diverse that fair benchmarking with the same binary, code, and even hyperparameters is difficult. We therefore present MLPerf, an ML benchmark that overcomes these challenges. Our analysis quantitatively evaluates MLPerfs efficacy at driving performance and scalability improvements across two rounds of results from multiple vendors.
Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devices to data-center solutions. Fueling the hardware are a dozen or more software frameworks and libraries. The myriad combinations of ML hardware and ML software make assessing ML-system performance in an architecture-neutral, representative, and reproducible manner challenging. There is a clear need for industry-wide standard ML benchmarking and evaluation criteria. MLPerf Inference answers that call. In this paper, we present our benchmarking method for evaluating ML inference systems. Driven by more than 30 organizations as well as more than 200 ML engineers and practitioners, MLPerf prescribes a set of rules and best practices to ensure comparability across systems with wildly differing architectures. The first call for submissions garnered more than 600 reproducible inference-performance measurements from 14 organizations, representing over 30 systems that showcase a wide range of capabilities. The submissions attest to the benchmarks flexibility and adaptability.
With the emergence of XML as a standard for representing business data, new decision support applications are being developed. These XML data warehouses aim at supporting On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) operations that manipulate irregular XML data. To ensure feasibility of these new tools, important performance issues must be addressed. Performance is customarily assessed with the help of benchmarks. However, decision support benchmarks do not currently support XML features. In this paper, we introduce the XML Warehouse Benchmark (XWeB), which aims at filling this gap. XWeB derives from the relational decision support benchmark TPC-H. It is mainly composed of a test data warehouse that is based on a unified reference model for XML warehouses and that features XML-specific structures, and its associate XQuery decision support workload. XWeBs usage is illustrated by experiments on several XML database management systems.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
