Paper detail

Joins on Samples: A Theoretical Guide for Practitioners

Despite decades of research on approximate query processing (AQP), our understanding of sample-based joins has remained limited and, to some extent, even superficial. The common belief in the community is that joining random samples is futile. This belief is largely based on an early result showing that the join of two uniform samples is not an independent sample of the original join, and that it leads to quadratically fewer output tuples. However, unfortunately, this result has little applicability to the key questions practitioners face. For example, the success metric is often the final approximation's accuracy, rather than output cardinality. Moreover, there are many non-uniform sampling strategies that one can employ. Is sampling for joins still futile in all of these settings? If not, what is the best sampling strategy in each case? To the best of our knowledge, there is no formal study answering these questions. This paper aims to improve our understanding of sample-based joins and offer a guideline for practitioners building and using real-world AQP systems. We study limitations of offline samples in approximating join queries: given an offline sampling budget, how well can one approximate the join of two tables? We answer this question for two success metrics: output size and estimator variance. We show that maximizing output size is easy, while there is an information-theoretical lower bound on the lowest variance achievable by any sampling strategy. We then define a hybrid sampling scheme that captures all combinations of stratified, universe, and Bernoulli sampling, and show that this scheme with our optimal parameters achieves the theoretical lower bound within a constant factor. Since computing these optimal parameters requires shuffling statistics across the network, we also propose a decentralized variant where each node acts autonomously using minimal statistics.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.