Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ben Kimmett

dblp:146/0430 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Query processing and optimization · 67% Distributed and cloud data management · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Query processing and optimization › similarity join
fuzzy join
0.212015
Fuzzy Joins in MapReduce: An Experimental Study · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2015
Query processing and optimization
join processing
0.212015
Fuzzy Joins in MapReduce: An Experimental Study · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2015
Distributed and cloud data management
mapreduce
0.212015
Fuzzy Joins in MapReduce: An Experimental Study · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

experimental evaluation · 0.2communication cost analysis · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Fuzzy Joins in MapReduce: An Experimental Study
abstract
We report experimental results for the MapReduce algorithms proposed by Afrati, Das Sarma, Menestrina, Parameswaran and Ullman in ICDE'12 to compute fuzzy joins of binary strings using Hamming Distance. Their algorithms come with complete theoretical analysis, however, no experimental evaluation is provided. They argue that there is a tradeoff between communication cost and processing cost, and that there is a skyline of the proposed algorithms; i.e. none dominates another. We observe via experiments that, from a practical point of view, some algorithms are almost always preferable to others. We provide detailed experimental results and insights that show the different facets of each algorithm.
Ben Kimmett, S. Venkatesh 0001, Alex Thomo
Proc. VLDB Endow.1