Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Powering In-Database Dynamic Model Slicing for Structured Data Analytics (2405.00568v2)

Published 1 May 2024 in cs.DB and cs.AI

Abstract: Relational database management systems (RDBMS) are widely used for the storage of structured data. To derive insights beyond statistical aggregation, we typically have to extract specific subdatasets from the database using conventional database operations, and then apply deep neural networks (DNN) training and inference on these subdatasets in a separate analytics system. The process can be prohibitively expensive, especially when there are various subdatasets extracted for different analytical purposes. This calls for efficient in-database support of advanced analytical methods. In this paper, we introduce LEADS, a novel SQL-aware dynamic model slicing technique to customize models for specified SQL queries. LEADS improves the predictive modeling of structured data via the mixture of experts (MoE) and maintains efficiency by a SQL-aware gating network. At the core of LEADS is the construction of a general model with multiple expert sub-models trained over the database. The MoE scales up the modeling capacity, enhances effectiveness, and preserves efficiency by activating necessary experts via the SQL-aware gating network during inference. To support in-database analytics, we build an inference extension that integrates LEADS onto PostgreSQL. Our extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that LEADS consistently outperforms the baseline models, and the in-database inference extension delivers a considerable reduction in inference latency compared to traditional solutions.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (65)
  1. [n.d.]. gprx:Framework for developing PostgreSQL extensions in Rust. https://github.com/pgcentralfoundation/pgrx. Accessed: October 10, 2023.
  2. [n.d.]. machine learning models in BigQuery ML. https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/create-machine-learning-model. Accessed: October 10, 2023.
  3. 2000. Census-Income (KDD). UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5N30T.
  4. 2023. Microsoft SQL MLS. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/machine-learning/sql-server-machine-learning-services?view=sql-server-2017. Accessed: October 10, 2023.
  5. In-database learning with sparse tensors. In PODS. 325–340.
  6. KirillOdintsov Martin Kotek Anna Montoya, inversion. 2018. Home Credit Default Risk. https://kaggle.com/competitions/home-credit-default-risk
  7. Model Slicing for Supporting Complex Analytics with Elastic Inference Cost and Resource Constraints. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13, 2 (2019), 86–99.
  8. Arm-net: Adaptive relation modeling network for structured data. In SIGMOD. 207–220.
  9. Adaptive factorization network: Learning adaptive-order feature interactions. In AAAI, Vol. 34. 3609–3616.
  10. Cios Krzysztof DeShazo Jon Clore, John and Beata Strack. 2014. Diabetes 130-US hospitals for years 1999-2008. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5230J.
  11. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with YCSB. In SoCC, Joseph M. Hellerstein, Surajit Chaudhuri, and Mendel Rosenblum (Eds.). ACM, 143–154.
  12. Adaptively sparse transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00015 (2019).
  13. Clipper: A Low-Latency Online Prediction Serving System. In NSDI, Aditya Akella and Jon Howell (Eds.). 613–627.
  14. Jesse Davis and Mark Goadrich. 2006. The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves. In ICML. 233–240.
  15. Learning factored representations in a deep mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4314 (2013).
  16. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 23, 1 (2022), 5232–5270.
  17. Towards a unified architecture for in-RDBMS analytics. In SIGMOD. 325–336.
  18. YeSQL: ”You extend SQL” with Rich and Highly Performant User-Defined Functions in Relational Databases. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 15 (2022), 2270–2283.
  19. Matt W Gardner and SR Dorling. 1998. Artificial neural networks (the multilayer perceptron)—a review of applications in the atmospheric sciences. Atmospheric environment 32, 14-15 (1998), 2627–2636.
  20. 6.2. 2.3 softmax units for multinoulli output distributions. Deep learning 180 (2016).
  21. Data cube: A relational aggregation operator generalizing group-by, cross-tab, and sub-totals. Data mining and knowledge discovery 1 (1997), 29–53.
  22. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585, 7825 (Sept. 2020), 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
  23. Xiangnan He and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. Neural factorization machines for sparse predictive analytics. In SIGIR. 355–364.
  24. The MADlib analytics library or MAD skills, the SQL. arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.4165 (2012).
  25. Tabtransformer: Tabular data modeling using contextual embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06678 (2020).
  26. PyTorch. Programming with TensorFlow: Solution for Edge Computing Applications (2021), 87–104.
  27. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation 3, 1 (1991), 79–87.
  28. Robust and Transferable Log-based Anomaly Detection. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data 1, 1 (2023), 1–26.
  29. Michael I Jordan and Robert A Jacobs. 1994. Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the EM algorithm. Neural computation 6, 2 (1994), 181–214.
  30. Learning models over relational data using sparse tensors and functional dependencies. TODS 45, 2 (2020), 1–66.
  31. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).
  32. Understanding reuse, performance, and hardware cost of dnn dataflow: A data-centric approach. In MICRO. 754–768.
  33. Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668 (2020).
  34. Enabling and optimizing non-linear feature interactions in factorized linear algebra. In SIGMOD. 1571–1588.
  35. xdeepfm: Combining explicit and implicit feature interactions for recommender systems. In KDD. 1754–1763.
  36. MoE-LLaVA: Mixture of Experts for Large Vision-Language Models. CoRR abs/2401.15947 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2401.15947
  37. MetaInsight: Automatic Discovery of Structured Knowledge for Exploratory Data Analysis. In SIGMOD, Guoliang Li, Zhanhuai Li, Stratos Idreos, and Divesh Srivastava (Eds.). 1262–1274.
  38. Andre Martins and Ramon Astudillo. 2016. From softmax to sparsemax: A sparse model of attention and multi-label classification. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1614–1623.
  39. Raghunath Othayoth Nambiar and Meikel Poess. 2006. The Making of TPC-DS. In VLDB, Vol. 6. 1049–1058.
  40. Guillermo Navas-Palencia. 2020. Optimal binning: mathematical programming formulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08025 (2020).
  41. F-IVM: learning over fast-evolving relational data. In SIGMOD. 2773–2776.
  42. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. CoRR abs/2303.08774 (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2303.08774
  43. End-to-end Optimization of Machine Learning Prediction Queries. In SIGMOD, Zachary G. Ives, Angela Bonifati, and Amr El Abbadi (Eds.). ACM, 587–601.
  44. Sparse Sequence-to-Sequence Models. In ACL. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P19-1146
  45. S Brintha Rajakumari and C Nalini. 2014. An efficient data mining dataset preparation using aggregation in relational database. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 7 (2014), 44.
  46. Steffen Rendle. 2013. Scaling factorization machines to relational data. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 6, 5 (2013), 337–348.
  47. Scaling vision with sparse mixture of experts. NeurIPS (2021), 8583–8595.
  48. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538 (2017).
  49. Impact of HbA1c measurement on hospital readmission rates: analysis of 70,000 clinical database patient records. BioMed research international 2014 (2014).
  50. Constantino Tsallis. 1988. Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics. Journal of statistical physics 52 (1988), 479–487.
  51. Rafiki: Machine Learning as an Analytics Service System. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 12, 2 (2018), 128–140.
  52. Deep Learning: Systems and Responsibility. In SIGMOD, Guoliang Li, Zhanhuai Li, Stratos Idreos, and Divesh Srivastava (Eds.). ACM, 2867–2875.
  53. Bayesian methods for mixtures of experts. NIPS 8 (1995), 351–357.
  54. Database Native Model Selection: Harnessing Deep Neural Networks in Database Systems. ([n. d.]).
  55. In-Database Machine Learning with CorgiPile: Stochastic Gradient Descent without Full Data Shuffle. In SIGMOD. 1286–1300.
  56. Lei Xu and Kalyan Veeramachaneni. 2018. Synthesizing tabular data using generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11264 (2018).
  57. Go wider instead of deeper. In AAAI, Vol. 36. 8779–8787.
  58. Optimizing machine learning inference queries with correlative proxy models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00309 (2022).
  59. I-Cheng Yeh. 2016. Default of credit card clients. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C55S3H.
  60. I-Cheng Yeh and Che-hui Lien. 2009. The comparisons of data mining techniques for the predictive accuracy of probability of default of credit card clients. Expert systems with applications 36, 2 (2009), 2473–2480.
  61. Andrew Yu and Jolly Chen. 1995. The POSTGRES95 user manual.
  62. Twenty years of mixture of experts. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 23, 8 (2012), 1177–1193.
  63. Distributed deep learning on data systems: a comparative analysis of approaches. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 14, 10 (2021).
  64. Tracer: A framework for facilitating accurate and interpretable analytics for high stakes applications. In SIGMOD. 1747–1763.
  65. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. NeurIPS (2022), 7103–7114.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com