Profiling and Visualizing Dynamic Pruning Algorithms
Pages 3125 - 3129
Abstract
Efficiently retrieving the top-k documents for a given query is a fundamental operation in many search applications. Dynamic pruning algorithms accelerate top-k retrieval over inverted indexes by skipping documents that are not able to enter the current set of results. However, the performance of these algorithms depends on a number of variables such as the ranking function, the order of documents within the index, and the number of documents to be retrieved. In this paper, we propose a diagnostic framework, Dyno, for profiling and visualizing the performance of dynamic pruning algorithms. Our framework captures processing traces during retrieval, allowing the operations of the index traversal algorithm to be visualized. These visualizations support both query-level and system-to-system comparisons, enabling performance characteristics to be readily understood for different systems. Dyno benefits both academics and practitioners by furthering our understanding of the behavior of dynamic pruning algorithms, allowing better design choices to be made during experimentation and deployment.
References
[1]
I. S. Altingovde, E. Demir, F. Can, and O. Ulusoy. Incremental cluster-based retrieval using compressed cluster-skipping inverted files. ACM Trans. Inf. Sys., 26(3), 2008.
[2]
V. N. Anh, O. de Kretser, and A. Moffat. Vector-space ranking with effective early termination. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 35--42, 2001.
[3]
P. Bajaj, D. Campos, N. Craswell, L. Deng, J. Gao, X. Liu, R. Majumder, A. Mc- Namara, B. Mitra, T. Nguyen, M. Rosenberg, X. Song, A. Stoica, S. Tiwary, and T. Wang. MS MARCO: A human generated MAchine Reading COmprehension dataset. arXiv:1611.09268v3, 2018.
[4]
D. Blandford and G. Blelloch. Index compression through document reordering. In Proc. DCC, pages 342--352, 2002.
[5]
E. Bortnikov, D. Carmel, and G. Golan-Gueta. Top-k query processing with conditional skips. In Proc. WWW, pages 653--661, 2017.
[6]
A. Z. Broder, D. Carmel, M. Herscovici, A. Soffer, and J. Zien. Efficient query evaluation using a two-level retrieval process. In Proc. CIKM, pages 426--434, 2003.
[7]
K. Chakrabarti, S. Chaudhuri, and V. Ganti. Interval-based pruning for top-?? processing over compressed lists. In Proc. ICDE, pages 709--720, 2011.
[8]
M. Crane, A. Trotman, and R. O'Keefe. Maintaining discriminatory power in quantized indexes. In Proc. CIKM, pages 1221--1224, 2013.
[9]
M. Crane, J. S. Culpepper, J. Lin, J. Mackenzie, and A. Trotman. A comparison of document-at-a-time and score-at-a-time query evaluation. In Proc. WSDM, pages 201--210, 2017.
[10]
N. Craswell, B. Mitra, E. Yilmaz, D. Campos, and E. M. Voorhees. Overview of the TREC 2019 deep learning track. In Proc. TREC, 2021.
[11]
C. M. Daoud, E. S. de Moura, D. Fernandes, A. S. da Silva, C. Rossi, and A. Carvalho. Waves: A fast multi-tier top-k query processing algorithm. Inf. Retr., 20(3):292--316, 2017.
[12]
L. L. S. de Carvalho, E. S. de Moura, C. M. Daoud, and A. S. da Silva. Heuristics to improve the BMW method and its variants. Journal of Information & Data Management, 6(3):178--191, 2015.
[13]
L. Dhulipala, I. Kabiljo, B. Karrer, G. Ottaviano, S. Pupyrev, and A. Shalita. Compressing graphs and indexes with recursive graph bisection. In Proc. KDD, pages 1535--1544, 2016.
[14]
C. Dimopoulos, S. Nepomnyachiy, and T. Suel. A candidate filtering mechanism for fast top-k query processing on modern CPUs. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 723--732, 2013.
[15]
S. Ding and T. Suel. Faster top-k document retrieval using block-max indexes. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 993--1002, 2011.
[16]
A. Grand, R. Muir, J. Ferenczi, and J. Lin. From MaxScore to Block-Max Wand: The story of how Lucene significantly improved query evaluation performance. In Proc. ECIR, pages 20--27, 2020.
[17]
F. Hafizoglu, E. C. Kucukoglu, and I. S. Altingovde. On the efficiency of selective search. In Proc. ECIR, pages 705--712, 2017.
[18]
A. Kane and F. W. Tompa. Split-lists and initial thresholds for WAND-based search. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 877--880, 2018.
[19]
O. Khattab, M. Hammoud, and T. Elsayed. Finding the best of both worlds: Faster and more robust top-k document retrieval. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 1031--1040, 2020.
[20]
Y. Kim, J. Callan, J. S. Culpepper, and A. Moffat. Does selective search benefit from WAND optimization? In Proc. ECIR, pages 145--158, 2016.
[21]
D. Lemire and L. Boytsov. Decoding billions of integers per second through vectorization. Soft. Prac. & Exp., 45(1):1--29, 2015.
[22]
X. Ma, R. Pradeep, R. Nogueira, and J. Lin. Document expansions and learned sparse lexical representations for MSMARCO V1 and V2. In Proc. SIGIR, 2022.
[23]
C. Macdonald, R. McCreadie, R. L. T. Santos, and I. Ounis. From puppy to maturity: Experiences in developing Terrier. In Proc. OSIR at SIGIR 2012, 2012.
[24]
C. Macdonald, N. Tonellotto, and I. Ounis. Learning to predict response times for online query scheduling. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 621--630, 2012.
[25]
J. Mackenzie and A. Moffat. Examining the additivity of top-k query processing innovations. In Proc. CIKM, pages 1085--1094, 2020.
[26]
J. Mackenzie, A. Mallia, M. Petri, J. S. Culpepper, and T. Suel. Compressing inverted indexes with recursive graph bisection: A reproducibility study. In Proc. ECIR, pages 339--352, 2019.
[27]
J. Mackenzie, Z. Dai, L. Gallagher, and J. Callan. Efficiency implications of term weighting for passage retrieval. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 1821--1824, 2020.
[28]
J. Mackenzie, A. Mallia, A. Moffat, and M. Petri. Accelerating learned sparse indexes via term impact decomposition. In Findings of the ACL: EMNLP 2022, pages 2830--2842, 2022.
[29]
J. Mackenzie, M. Petri, and A. Moffat. Tradeoff options for bipartite graph partitioning. IEEE Trans. Know. & Data Eng., 2022. To appear.
[30]
J. Mackenzie, M. Petri, and A. Moffat. Anytime ranking on document-ordered indexes. ACM Trans. Inf. Sys., 40(1):13.1--13.32, 2022.
[31]
J. Mackenzie, A. Trotman, and J. Lin. Efficient document-at-a-time and score-at- a-time query evaluation for learned sparse representations. ACM Trans. Inf. Sys., 41(4), 2023.
[32]
A. Mallia, G. Ottaviano, E. Porciani, N. Tonellotto, and R. Venturini. Faster BlockMax WAND with variable-sized blocks. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 625--634, 2017.
[33]
A. Mallia, M. Siedlaczek, J. Mackenzie, and T. Suel. PISA: Performant indexes and search for academia. In Proc. OSIRRC at SIGIR 2019, pages 50--56, 2019.
[34]
A. Mallia, M. Siedlaczek, and T. Suel. An experimental study of index compression and DAAT query processing methods. In Proc. ECIR, pages 353--368, 2019.
[35]
A. Mallia, M. Siedlaczek, M. Sun, and T. Suel. A comparison of top-?? threshold estimation techniques for disjunctive query processing. In Proc. CIKM, pages 2141--2144, 2020.
[36]
A. Mallia, O. Khattab, N. Tonellotto, and T. Suel. Learning passage impacts for inverted indexes. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 1723--1727, 2021.
[37]
R. Nogueira and J. Lin. From doc2query to docTTTTTquery, 2019. Unpublished technical report.
[38]
M. Petri, J. S. Culpepper, and A. Moffat. Exploring the magic of WAND. In Proc. Aust. Doc. Comp. Symp., pages 58--65, 2013.
[39]
M. Petri, A. Moffat, J. Mackenzie, J. S. Culpepper, and D. Beck. Accelerated query processing via similarity score prediction. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 485--494, 2019.
[40]
G. E. Pibiri and R. Venturini. Techniques for inverted index compression. ACM Comp. Surv., 53(6):125.1--125.36, 2021.
[41]
S. E. Robertson and H. Zaragoza. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Found. Trnd. Inf. Retr., 3:333--389, 2009.
[42]
D. Shan, S. Ding, J. He, H. Yan, and X. Li. Optimized top-k processing with global page scores on block-max indexes. In Proc. WSDM, pages 423--432, 2012.
[43]
W.-Y. Shieh, T.-F. Chen, J. J.-J. Shann, and C.-P. Chung. Inverted file compression through document identifier reassignment. Inf. Proc. & Man., 39(1):117--131, 2003.
[44]
F. Silvestri. Sorting out the document identifier assignment problem. In Proc. ECIR, pages 101--112, 2007.
[45]
N. Tonellotto, C. Macdonald, and I. Ounis. Effect of different docid orderings on dynamic pruning retrieval strategies. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 1179--1180, 2011.
[46]
N. Tonellotto, C. Macdonald, and I. Ounis. Efficient and effective retrieval using selective pruning. In Proc. WSDM, pages 63--72, 2013.
[47]
N. Tonellotto, C. Macdonald, and I. Ounis. Efficient query processing for scalable web search. Found. Trnd. Inf. Retr., 12(4--5):319--500, 2018.
[48]
H. R. Turtle and J. Flood. Query evaluation: Strategies and optimizations. Inf. Proc. & Man., 31(6):831--850, 1995.
[49]
L. Wang, J. Lin, and D. Metzler. A cascade ranking model for efficient ranked retrieval. In Proc. SIGIR, pages 105--114, 2011.
[50]
E. Yafay and I. S. Altingovde. Caching scores for faster query processing with dynamic pruning in search engines. In Proc. CIKM, pages 2457--2460, 2019.
[51]
P. Yang, H. Fang, and J. Lin. Anserini: Reproducible ranking baselines using lucene. J. Data Inf. Qual., 10(4):16.1--17.20, 2018.
[52]
J. Zobel and A. Moffat. Inverted files for text search engines. ACM Comp. Surv., 38(2):6.1--6.56, 2006
Index Terms
- Profiling and Visualizing Dynamic Pruning Algorithms
Recommendations
Hybrid Dynamic Pruning for Efficient and Effective Query Processing
CIKM '20: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge ManagementThe performance of query processing has always been a concern in the field of information retrieval. Dynamic pruning algorithms have been proposed to improve query processing performance in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. However, a single ...
Efficient algorithms for finding the most desirable skyline objects
The skyline query is a powerful tool for multi-criteria decision making. However, it may return too many skyline objects to offer any meaningful insight. In this paper, we introduce a new operator, namely, the most desirable skyline object (MDSO) query, ...
Combining static and dynamic data in code visualization
PASTE '02: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineeringThe task of developing, tuning, and debugging compiler optimizations is a difficult one which can be facilitated by software visualization. There are many characteristics of the code which must be considered when studying the kinds of optimizations ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2023
3567 pages
ISBN:9781450394086
DOI:10.1145/3539618
- General Chairs:
- Hsin-Hsi Chen,
- Wei-Jou (Edward) Duh,
- Hen-Hsen Huang,
- Program Chairs:
- Makoto P. Kato,
- Josiane Mothe,
- Barbara Poblete
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 18 July 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
Conference
SIGIR '23
Sponsor:
SIGIR '23: The 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
July 23 - 27, 2023
Taipei, Taiwan
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 792 of 3,983 submissions, 20%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 69Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)41
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in