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

Nikhil Kak

dblp:295/9108 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—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 since 2021

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
Machine learning and data management · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Cloud and datacenter computing · 50% Parallel and multicore computing · 50%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning and data management
in-database machine learning
0.512021
Distributed Deep Learning on Data Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2021
Cloud and datacenter computing
cluster resource management and scheduling
0.112021
Distributed Deep Learning on Data Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2021
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel computation models
parallel execution models
0.112021
Distributed Deep Learning on Data Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2021

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

model hopper parallelism · 1.0empirical benchmarking · 1.0analytical comparison · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Distributed Deep Learning on Data Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches
abstract
Deep learning (DL) is growing in popularity for many data analytics applications, including among enterprises. Large business-critical datasets in such settings typically reside in RDBMSs or other data systems. The DB community has long aimed to bring machine learning (ML) to DBMS-resident data. Given past lessons from in-DBMS ML and recent advances in scalable DL systems, DBMS and cloud vendors are increasingly interested in adding more DL support for DB-resident data. Recently, a new parallel DL model selection execution approach called Model Hopper Parallelism (MOP) was proposed. In this paper, we characterize the particular suitability of MOP for DL on data systems, but to bring MOP-based DL to DB-resident data, we show that there is no single "best" approach, and an interesting tradeoff space of approaches exists. We explain four canonical approaches and build prototypes upon Greenplum Database, compare them analytically on multiple criteria (e.g., runtime efficiency and ease of governance) and compare them empirically with large-scale DL workloads. Our experiments and analyses show that it is non-trivial to meet all practical desiderata well and there is a Pareto frontier; for instance, some approaches are 3x-6x faster but fare worse on governance and portability. Our results and insights can help DBMS and cloud vendors design better DL support for DB users. All of our source code, data, and other artifacts are available at https://github.com/makemebitter/cerebro-ds.
Frank Mcquillan, Nandish Jayaram, Nikhil Kak, Ekta Khanna, Orhan Kislal, Domino Valdano, Arun Kumar 0001
Proc. VLDB Endow.4