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

Jan-Peer Rudolph

dblp:163/6512 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
0009-0006-9434-5713ORCID · reported

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

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
Data integration and cleaning · 70% Database system architecture and tuning · 30%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Data integration and cleaning
data profiling
0.212015
Functional Dependency Discovery: An Experimental Evaluation of Seven Algorithms · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2015
Data integration and cleaning › dependency discovery
functional dependency discovery
0.212015
Functional Dependency Discovery: An Experimental Evaluation of Seven Algorithms · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2015
Database system architecture and tuning › database design
schema normalization
0.212015
Functional Dependency Discovery: An Experimental Evaluation of Seven Algorithms · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2015
Data integration and cleaning › data preprocessing
data cleaning
0.112015
Functional Dependency Discovery: An Experimental Evaluation of Seven Algorithms · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2015

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

re-implementation · 0.2experimental evaluation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Functional Dependency Discovery: An Experimental Evaluation of Seven Algorithms
abstract
Functional dependencies are important metadata used for schema normalization, data cleansing and many other tasks. The efficient discovery of functional dependencies in tables is a well-known challenge in database research and has seen several approaches. Because no comprehensive comparison between these algorithms exist at the time, it is hard to choose the best algorithm for a given dataset. In this experimental paper, we describe, evaluate, and compare the seven most cited and most important algorithms, all solving this same problem. First, we classify the algorithms into three different categories, explaining their commonalities. We then describe all algorithms with their main ideas. The descriptions provide additional details where the original papers were ambiguous or incomplete. Our evaluation of careful re-implementations of all algorithms spans a broad test space including synthetic and real-world data. We show that all functional dependency algorithms optimize for certain data characteristics and provide hints on when to choose which algorithm. In summary, however, all current approaches scale surprisingly poorly, showing potential for future research.
Thorsten Papenbrock, Jens Ehrlich, Jannik Marten, Tommy Neubert, Jan-Peer Rudolph, Martin Schönberg, Jakob Zwiener, Felix Naumann
Proc. VLDB Endow.5