Bottom-Up Computation of Sparse and Iceberg CUBEs

383Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We introduce the Iceberg-CUBE problem as a reformulation of the datacube (CUBE) problem. The Iceberg-CUBE problem is to compute only those group-by partitions with an aggregate value (e.g., count) above some minimum support threshold. The result of Iceberg-CUBE can be used (1) to answer group-by queries with a clause such as HAVING COUNT(*) >= X, where X is greater than the threshold, (2) for mining multidimensional association rules, and (3) to complement existing strategies for identifying interesting subsets of the CUBE for precomputation. We present a new algorithm (BUC) for Iceberg-CUBE computation. BUC builds the CUBE bottom-up; i.e., it builds the CUBE by starting from a group-by on a single attribute, then a group-by on a pair of attributes, then a group-by on three attributes, and so on. This is the opposite of all techniques proposed earlier for computing the CUBE, and has an important practical advantage: BUC avoids computing the larger group-bys that do not meet minimum support. The pruning in BUC is similar to the pruning in the Apriori algorithm for association rules, except that BUC trades some pruning for locality of reference and reduced memory requirements. BUC uses the same pruning strategy when computing sparse, complete CUBEs. We present a thorough performance evaluation over a broad range of workloads. Our evaluation demonstrates that (in contrast to earlier assumptions) minimizing the aggregations or the number of sorts is not the most important aspect of the sparse CUBE problem. The pruning in BUC, combined with an efficient sort method, enables BUC to outperform all previous algorithms for sparse CUBEs, even for computing entire CUBEs, and to dramatically improve Iceberg-CUBE computation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Beyer, K., & Ramakrishnan, R. (1999). Bottom-Up Computation of Sparse and Iceberg CUBEs. SIGMOD Record (ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data), 28(2), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1145/304181.304214

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free