2006
DOI: 10.1007/11687238_27
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deferred Maintenance of Disk-Based Random Samples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the algorithm of [7], as well as its WR extension described in Section 1.3, is already optimal. Note that the theorem officially separates WoR sampling from WR sampling-conditioned on spending O( R B log N R ) I/Os processing N stream elements, a WoR sample set can be reported in O(R/B) I/Os, whereas a WR one requires Ω(perm(R)) I/Os to report.…”
Section: Our Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Therefore, the algorithm of [7], as well as its WR extension described in Section 1.3, is already optimal. Note that the theorem officially separates WoR sampling from WR sampling-conditioned on spending O( R B log N R ) I/Os processing N stream elements, a WoR sample set can be reported in O(R/B) I/Os, whereas a WR one requires Ω(perm(R)) I/Os to report.…”
Section: Our Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The geometric file of Jermaine et al [12,18] processes a stream of N elements with total cost of O( R 2 M B log N R ) expected I/Os, and consumes O(R/B) space at all times, such that a sample set of size R can be output at any moment in O(R/B) I/Os. Gemulla and Lehner [7] presented an improved algorithm that (when adapted to EMS) has the same space and sample reporting cost as the geometric file, but can process N stream elements with O( R B log N R ) expected I/Os in total. There have been no explicit studies on maintaining massive WR sample sets.…”
Section: Problem Definitions and Previous Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations