diogo/yap-6.3
Archived
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

change ILP text\

Browse Source 
git-svn-id: https://yap.svn.sf.net/svnroot/yap/trunk@1825 b08c6af1-5177-4d33-ba66-4b1c6b8b522a
This commit is contained in:
vsc 2007-03-10 19:39:52 +00:00
parent 63a4ae736d
commit 570bce634d
1 changed files with 135 additions and 477 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

612
docs/index/iclp07.tex
View File

@ -936,6 +936,12 @@ and report times in seconds.
\subsection{JITI Speedups} \label{sec:perf:speedups}
%---------------------------------------------------
% Our experience with the indexing algorithm described here shows a
% significant performance improvement over the previous indexing code in
% our system. Quite often, this has allowed us to tackle applications
% which previously would not have been feasible. We next present some
% results that show how useful the algorithms can be.
Here I already have "compress", "mutagenesis" and "sg\_cyl"
The "sg\_cyl" has a really impressive speedup (2 orders of
magnitude). We should keep the explanation in your text.
@ -943,217 +949,6 @@ and report times in seconds.
If time permits, we should also add some FSA benchmarks
(e.g. "k963", "dg5" and "tl3" from PLDI)
\subsection{JITI in ILP} \label{sec:perf:ILP}
%--------------------------------------------
The need for just-in-time indexing was originally motivated by ILP
applications. Table~\ref{tab:aleph} shows JITI performance on some
learning tasks using the ALEPH system~\cite{}. The dataset
\texttt{Krki} tries to learn rules for chess end-games;
\texttt{GeneExpression} learns rules for yeast gene activity given a
database of genes, their interactions, plus micro-array data;
\texttt{BreastCancer} processes real-life patient reports towards
predicting whether an abnormality may be malignant;
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} processes information extraction from
paper abstracts to search proteins; \texttt{Susi} learns from shopping
patterns; and \texttt{Mesh} learns rules for finite-methods mesh
design. The datasets \texttt{Carcinogenesis}, \texttt{Choline},
\texttt{Mutagenesis}, \texttt{Pyrimidines}, and \texttt{Thermolysin}
are about predicting chemical properties of compounds. The first three
datasets present properties of interest as boolean attributes, but
\texttt{Thermolysin} learns from the 3D structure of a molecule.
Several of these datasets are standard across Machine Learning
literature. \texttt{GeneExpression}~\cite{} and
\texttt{BreastCancer}~\cite{} were partly developed by some of the
authors. Most datasets perform simple queries in an extensional
database. The exception is \texttt{Mutagenesis} where several
predicates are defined intensionally, requiring extensive computation.
\begin{table}[ht]
%\vspace{-\intextsep}
%\begin{table}[htbp]
%\centering
\centering
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf Time in sec.} & \bf \JITI \\
{\bf Benchs.} & \bf $A1$ & \bf JITI & \bf Ratio \\
\hline
\texttt{BreastCancer} & 1450 & 88 & 16\\
\texttt{Carcinogenesis} & 17,705 & 192 &92\\
\texttt{Choline} & 14,766 & 1,397 & 11 \\
\texttt{GeneExpression} & 193,283 & 7,483 & 26 \\
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} & 1,677,146 & 2,909 & 577 \\
\texttt{Krki} & 0.3 & 0.3 & 1 \\
\texttt{Krki II} & 1.3 & 1.3 & 1 \\
\texttt{Mesh} & 4 & 3 & 1.3 \\
\texttt{Mutagenesis} & 51,775 & 27,746 & 1.9\\
\texttt{Pyrimidines} & 487,545 & 253,235 & 1.9 \\
\texttt{Susi} & 105,091 & 307 & 342 \\
\texttt{Thermolysin} & 50,279 & 5,213 & 10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Machine Learning (ILP) Datasets: Times are given in Seconds,
we give time for standard indexing with no indexing on dynamic
predicates versus the \JITI implementation}
\label{tab:aleph}
\end{table}
We compare times for 10 runs of the saturation/refinement cycle of the
ILP system. Table~\ref{tab:aleph} shows results. The \texttt{Krki}
datasets have small search spaces and small databases, so they
essentially maintain performance. The \texttt{Mesh},
\texttt{Mutagenesis}, and \texttt{Pyrimides} applications do not
benefit much from indexing in the database, but they do benefit from
indexing in the dynamic representation of the search space, as their
running times halve.
The \texttt{BreastCancer} and \texttt{GeneExpression} applications use
1NF data (that is, unstructured data). The benefit here is from
multiple-argument indexing. \texttt{BreastCancer} is particularly
interesting. It consists of 40 binary relations with 65k elements
each, where the first argument is the key, like in \texttt{sg\_cyl}. We
know that most calls have the first argument bound, hence indexing was
not expected to matter very much. Instead, the results show \JITI
running time to improve by an order of magnitude. Like in
\texttt{sg\_cyl}, this suggests that relatively small numbers of badly
indexed calls can dominate running time.
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} and \texttt{Thermolysin} are example
applications that manipulate structured data.
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} is the largest dataset we considered,
and indexing is simply critical: we could not run the application in
reasonable time without JITI. \texttt{Thermolysin} is smaller and
performs some computation per query: even so, indexing is very
important.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r||r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{5}{|c||}{\bf Static Code} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\bf Dynamic Code \& IDB} \\
& \textbf{Clause} & \multicolumn{4}{|c||}{\bf Indexing Code} & \textbf{Clause} & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\bf Indexing Code} \\
\textbf{Benchmarks} & & Total & T & W & S & & Total & T & C & W & S \\
\hline
\texttt{BreastCancer} & 60940 & 46887 & 46242 &
3126 & 125 & 630 & 14 &42 & 18& 57 &6 \\
\texttt{Carcinogenesis} & 1801 & 2678
&1225 & 587 & 865 & 13512 & 942 & 291 & 91 & 457 & 102
\\
\texttt{Choline} & 666 & 174
&67 & 48 & 58 & 3172 & 174
& 76 & 4 & 48 & 45
\\
\texttt{GeneExpression} & 46726 & 22629
&6780 & 6473 & 9375 & 116463 & 9015
& 2703 & 932 & 3910 & 1469
\\
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} &146033 & 129333
&39279 & 24322 & 65732 & 53423 & 1531
& 467 & 108 & 868 & 86
\\
\texttt{Krki} & 678 & 117
&52 & 24 & 40 & 2047 & 24
& 10 & 2 & 10 & 1
\\
\texttt{Krki II} & 1866 & 715
&180 & 233 & 301 & 2055 & 26
& 11 & 2 & 11 & 1
\\
\texttt{Mesh} & 802 & 161
&49 & 18 & 93 & 2149 & 109
& 46 & 4 & 35 & 22
\\
\texttt{Mutagenesis} & 1412 & 1848
&1045 & 291 & 510 & 4302 & 595
& 156 & 114 & 264 & 61
\\
\texttt{Pyrimidines} & 774 & 218
&76 & 63 & 77 & 25840 & 12291
& 4847 & 43 & 3510 & 3888
\\
\texttt{Susi} & 5007 & 2509
&855 & 578 & 1076 & 4497 & 759
& 324 & 58 & 256 & 120
\\
\texttt{Thermolysin} & 2317 & 929
&429 & 184 & 315 & 116129 & 7064
& 3295 & 1438 & 2160 & 170
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Memory Performance on Machine Learning (ILP) Datasets: memory
usage is given in KB}
\label{tab:ilpmem}
\end{table*}
We have seen that using the \JITI does not impose a significant
overhead. Table~\ref{tab:ilpmem} discusses the memory cost . It
measures memory being spend at a point near the end of execution.
Because dynamic memory expands and contracts, we chose a point where
memory usage should be at a maximum. The first five columns show data
usage on static predicates. The leftmost sub-column represents the
code used for clauses; the next sub-columns represent space used in
indices for static predicates: the first column gives total usage,
which consists of space used in the main tree, the expanded
wait-nodes, and hash-tables.
Static data-base sizes range from 146MB to 666KB, the latter mostly in
system libraries. The impact of indexing code varies widely: it is
more than the original code for \texttt{Mutagenesis}, almost as much
for \texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction}, and in most cases it adds at
least a third and often a half to the original data-base. It is
interesting to check the source of the space overhead: if the source
are hash-tables, we can expect this is because of highly-complex
indices. If overhead is in \emph{wait-nodes}, this again suggests a
sophisticated indexing structure. Overhead in the main tree may be
caused by a large number of nodes, or may be caused by \texttt{try}
nodes.
One first conclusion is that \emph{wait-nodes} are costly space-wise,
even if they are needed to achieve sensible compilation times. On the
other hand, whether the space is allocated to the tree or to the
hashes varies widely. \texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} is an example
where the indices seem very useful: most space was spent in the
hash-tables, although we still are paying much for \emph{wait-nodes}.
\texttt{BreastCancer} has very small hash-tables, because it
attributes range over small domains, but indexing is useful (we
believe this is because we are only interested in the first solution
in this case).
This version of the ILP system stores most dynamic data in the IDB.
The size of reflects the search space, and is largely independent of
the program's static data (notice that small applications such as
\texttt{Krki} do tend to have a small search space). Aleph's author
very carefully designed the system to work around overheads in
accessing the data-base, so indexing should not be as important. In
fact, indexing has a much lower space overhead in this case,
suggesting it is not so critical. On the other hand, looking at the
actual results shows that indexing is working well: most space is
spent on hashes and the tree, little space is spent on \texttt{try}
instructions. It is hard to separate the contributions of JITI on
static and dynamic data, but the results for \texttt{Mesh} and
\texttt{Mutagenesis}, where the JITI probably has little impact on
static code, suggest a factor of two from indexing on the IDB in this
case.
% Our experience with the indexing algorithm described here shows a
% significant performance improvement over the previous indexing code in
% our system. Quite often, this has allowed us to tackle applications
% which previously would not have been feasible. We next present some
% results that show how useful the algorithms can be.
Next, we present performance results for demand-driven indexing on a
number of benchmarks and real-life applications. Throughout, we
compare performance with single argument indexing. We use YAP-5.1.2
@ -1216,128 +1011,40 @@ improves performance in the latter case only, but this does make a
large difference, as the WAM code has to visit all thousand clauses if
the second argument is unbound.
The graph reachability datasets because they both use the same
program, but on different databases. The t-test does not show a
significant difference
} the database
itself. The JITI brings little benefits on the linear graphs if we
call the \texttt{path/3} predicates with left or right recursion. On
the other hand, it always improves performance when using the doubly
recursive version, and it always improves performance on the tree
graph.
To understand why, we first consider the simplest execution pattern,
given by the left-recursive procedure. The code for the LRF is:
\begin{verbatim}
path1(X,Y,[X,Y]) :- arc(X,Y).
path1(X,Y,[X|P]) :- arc(X,Z),
path1(Z,Y,P),
not_member(X,P).
\end{verbatim}
\noindent
Careful inspection of the program shows that \texttt{arc/3} can be
accessed with different modes. First, given the top-level goal
$path1(X,Y,\_)$ the two clauses for \texttt{path1/3} call
\texttt{arc/3} with both arguments free. Second, the recursive call
to \texttt{path1/3} can call \texttt{arc/3} in the base clause with
\emph{both arguments bound}. If the graph is linear, the second
argument is functionally dependent on the first, and indexing on the
first argument is sufficient. But, if the graph has a branching factor
$> 1$, WAM style first argument indexing will lead to backtracking,
whereas the JITI can perform direct lookup through the hash tables.
This explains the performance improvement for the \texttt{tree}
graphs.
Do such improvements hold for real applications? An interesting
application of tabled Prolog is in program analysis, often based in
Anderson's points-to analysis~\cite{anderson-phd}. In this framework,
imperative programs are encoded as a set of facts, and properties of
interest are encoded rules. Program properties can be verified by
checking the closure of the rules. Such programs therefore have
similar properties to the \texttt{path} benchmarks, and should
generate similar performance. Table~\ref{tab:pa} shows such
applications. The first analyses a smallish program and the second the
\texttt{javac} benchmark.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r||r|r|r||} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf Time in sec.} &
\multicolumn{3}{|c||}{\bf Static Space in KB.} \\
{\bf Benchs.} & \bf $A_1$ & \bf JITI & \bf Clause & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf Indices} \\
& & & & \bf $A_1$ & \bf JITI \\
\hline
\texttt{pta} & 14 & 1.7 & 845 & 318 & 351 \\
\texttt{tea} & 800 & 36.9 & 36781 & 1793 & 2848 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Program Analysis}
\label{tab:pa}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:pa} shows total running times, and size of static
data-base in KB for a YAP run. The first column shows the size in
clauses, the other two show the size of the indices when using
single-argument indexing and the JITI.
\begin{table}[ht]
%\vspace{-\intextsep}
%\begin{table}[htbp]
%\centering
\centering
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf Time in sec.} & \bf JITI \\
{\bf Benchs.} & \bf $A1$ & \bf JITI & \bf Ratio \\
\hline
\texttt{BreastCancer} & 1450 & 88 & 16\\
\texttt{Carcinogenesis} & 17,705 & 192 &92\\
\texttt{Choline} & 14,766 & 1,397 & 11 \\
\texttt{GeneExpression} & 193,283 & 7,483 & 26 \\
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} & 1,677,146 & 2,909 & 577 \\
\texttt{Krki} & 0.3 & 0.3 & 1 \\
\texttt{Krki II} & 1.3 & 1.3 & 1 \\
\texttt{Mesh} & 4 & 3 & 1.3 \\
\texttt{Mutagenesis} & 51,775 & 27,746 & 1.9\\
\texttt{Pyrimidines} & 487,545 & 253,235 & 1.9 \\
\texttt{Susi} & 105,091 & 307 & 342 \\
\texttt{Thermolysin} & 50,279 & 5,213 & 10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Machine Learning (ILP) Datasets}
\label{tab:aleph}
\end{table}
JITI was originally motivated by applications in the area of Machine
Learning that try to learn rules from databases (our compiler is used
on a number of such systems). Table~\ref{tab:aleph} shows performance
for one of the most popular such systems in some detail. The datasets
\subsection{JITI in ILP} \label{sec:perf:ILP}
%--------------------------------------------
The need for just-in-time indexing was originally motivated by ILP
applications. Table~\ref{tab:aleph} shows JITI performance on some
learning tasks using the ALEPH system~\cite{}. The dataset
\texttt{Krki} tries to learn rules from a small database of chess
end-games; \texttt{GeneExpression} learns rules for yeast gene
activity given a database of genes, their interactions, and
micro-array gene expression data; \texttt{BreastCancer} processes
real-life patient reports towards predicting whether an abnormality
may be malignant; \texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} processes
information extraction from paper abstracts to search proteins;
\texttt{Susi} learns from shopping patterns; and \texttt{Mesh} learns
rules for finite-methods mesh design. The datasets
\texttt{Carcinogenesis}, \texttt{Choline}, \texttt{Mutagenesis},
\texttt{Pyrimidines}, and \texttt{Thermolysin} are about predicting
chemical properties of compounds. Most queries perform very simple
queries in an extensional database; \texttt{Mutagenesis} includes
several predicates defined as rules; and \texttt{Thermolysin} performs
simple 3D distance computations. \texttt{Krki} are chess end-games.
\texttt{GeneExpression} processes micro-array data,
\texttt{BreastCancer} real-life patient reports,
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} information extraction from paper
abstracts that mention proteins, \texttt{Susi} shopping patterns, and
\texttt{Mesh} finite-methods mesh design. Several of these datasets
are standard across Machine Learning literature.
\texttt{GeneExpression} and \texttt{BreastCancer} were partly
developed by the authors.
chemical properties of compounds. The first three datasets store
properties of interest as tables, but \texttt{Thermolysin} learns from
the 3D-structure of a molecule's conformations. Several of these
datasets are standard across Machine Learning literature.
\texttt{GeneExpression}~\cite{} and \texttt{BreastCancer}~\cite{} were
partly developed by some of the authors. Most datasets perform simple
queries in an extensional database. The exception is
\texttt{Mutagenesis} where several predicates are defined
intensionally, requiring extensive computation.
\begin{table}[ht]
%\vspace{-\intextsep}
%\begin{table}[htbp]
%\centering
\centering
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf Time in sec.} & \bf JITI \\
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf Time in sec.} & \bf \JITI \\
{\bf Benchs.} & \bf $A1$ & \bf JITI & \bf Ratio \\
\hline
\texttt{BreastCancer} & 1450 & 88 & 16\\
@ -1354,210 +1061,161 @@ developed by the authors.
\texttt{Thermolysin} & 50,279 & 5,213 & 10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Machine Learning (ILP) Datasets}
\caption{Machine Learning (ILP) Datasets: Times are given in Seconds,
we give time for standard indexing with no indexing on dynamic
predicates versus the \JITI implementation}
\label{tab:aleph}
\end{table}
We compare times for 10 runs of the saturation/refinement cycle of the
ILP system. Table~\ref{tab:aleph} shows very clearly the advantages
of JITI: speedups range up to two orders of magnitude. Applications
such as \texttt{BreastCancer} and \texttt{GeneExpression} manipulate
1NF data (that is, unstructured data). The first benefit is from
multiple-argument indexing. Multi-argument is available in other
Prolog systems~\cite{BIM,xsb-manual,ZhTaUs-small,SWI}), but using
it would require extra user information that would be hard to most ILP
users: the JITI provides that for free. Just multi-argument indexing
does not explain everything. \texttt{BreastCancer} results were of
particular interest to us because the dataset was to a large extent
developed by the authors. It consists of 40 binary relations which are
most often used with the first argument as a key (it is almost
propositional learning). We did not expect a huge speedup, but the
results show the opposite: calls with both arguments bound, or with
the second argument bound may not be very frequent, but they are
frequent enough to justify indexing. This would be difficult to
predict beforehand, even to experienced Prolog programmers.
ILP system. Table~\ref{tab:aleph} shows results. The \texttt{Krki}
datasets have small search spaces and small databases, so they
essentially achieve the same performance under both versions: there is
no slowdown. The \texttt{Mesh}, \texttt{Mutagenesis}, and
\texttt{Pyrimides} applications do not benefit much from indexing in
the database, but they do benefit from indexing in the dynamic
representation of the search space, as their running times halve.
The \texttt{BreastCancer} and \texttt{GeneExpression} applications use
1NF data (that is, unstructured data). The benefit here is mostly from
multiple-argument indexing. \texttt{BreastCancer} is particularly
interesting. It consists of 40 binary relations with 65k elements
each, where the first argument is the key, like in
\texttt{sg\_cyl}. We know that most calls have the first argument
bound, hence indexing was not expected to matter very much. Instead,
the results show \JITI running time to improve by an order of
magnitude. Like in \texttt{sg\_cyl}, this suggests that even a small
percentage of badly indexed calls can come to dominate running time.
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} and \texttt{Thermolysin} are example
applications that manipulate structured data.
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} is a large dataset, therefore indexing
is simply critical: we could not run the application in reasonable
time without JITI. \texttt{Thermolysin} is smaller and performs
significant computation per query: even so, indexing is very
important.
Indexing is no magical bullet. On the flip side, \texttt{Mutagenesis}
is an example where indexing does help, but not by much. The problem
is that most time is spent on recursive predicates that were built to
use the first argument. \texttt{Mutagenesis} also shows a concern with
JITI: we generate large indices but we do not benefit very much.
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} is the largest dataset we consider,
and indexing is simply critical: it is not possible to run the
application in reasonable time with one argument
indexing. \texttt{Thermolysin} is smaller and performs some
computation per query: even so, indexing improves performance by an
order of magnitude.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r||r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{5}{|c||}{\bf Static Code} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\bf Dynamic Code \& IDB} \\
& \textbf{Clause} & \multicolumn{4}{|c||}{\bf Indexing Code} & \textbf{Clause} & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\bf Indexing Code} \\
\textbf{Benchmarks} & & Total & T & W & S & & Total & T & C & W & S \\
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r||r|r|} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf Static Code} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf Dynamic Code} \\
Benchmarks & \textbf{Clause} & {\bf Index} & \textbf{Clause} & {\bf Index} \\
% \textbf{Benchmarks} & & Total & T & W & S & & Total & T & C & W & S \\
\hline
\texttt{BreastCancer} & 60940 & 46887 & 46242 &
3126 & 125 & 630 & 14 &42 & 18& 57 &6 \\
\texttt{BreastCancer}
& 60940 & 46887
% & 46242 & 3126 & 125
& 630 & 14
% &42 & 18& 57 &6
\\
\texttt{Carcinogenesis} & 1801 & 2678
&1225 & 587 & 865 & 13512 & 942 & 291 & 91 & 457 & 102
\\
\texttt{Carcinogenesis}
& 1801 & 2678
% &1225 & 587 & 865
& 13512 & 942
%& 291 & 91 & 457 & 102
\\
\texttt{Choline} & 666 & 174
&67 & 48 & 58 & 3172 & 174
& 76 & 4 & 48 & 45
% &67 & 48 & 58
& 3172 & 174
% & 76 & 4 & 48 & 45
\\
\texttt{GeneExpression} & 46726 & 22629
&6780 & 6473 & 9375 & 116463 & 9015
& 2703 & 932 & 3910 & 1469
% &6780 & 6473 & 9375
& 116463 & 9015
%& 2703 & 932 & 3910 & 1469
\\
\texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} &146033 & 129333
&39279 & 24322 & 65732 & 53423 & 1531
& 467 & 108 & 868 & 86
%&39279 & 24322 & 65732
& 53423 & 1531
%& 467 & 108 & 868 & 86
\\
\texttt{Krki} & 678 & 117
&52 & 24 & 40 & 2047 & 24
& 10 & 2 & 10 & 1
%&52 & 24 & 40
& 2047 & 24
%& 10 & 2 & 10 & 1
\\
\texttt{Krki II} & 1866 & 715
&180 & 233 & 301 & 2055 & 26
& 11 & 2 & 11 & 1
%&180 & 233 & 301
& 2055 & 26
%& 11 & 2 & 11 & 1
\\
\texttt{Mesh} & 802 & 161
&49 & 18 & 93 & 2149 & 109
& 46 & 4 & 35 & 22
%&49 & 18 & 93
& 2149 & 109
%& 46 & 4 & 35 & 22
\\
\texttt{Mutagenesis} & 1412 & 1848
&1045 & 291 & 510 & 4302 & 595
& 156 & 114 & 264 & 61
%&1045 & 291 & 510
& 4302 & 595
%& 156 & 114 & 264 & 61
\\
\texttt{Pyrimidines} & 774 & 218
&76 & 63 & 77 & 25840 & 12291
& 4847 & 43 & 3510 & 3888
%&76 & 63 & 77
& 25840 & 12291
%& 4847 & 43 & 3510 & 3888
\\
\texttt{Susi} & 5007 & 2509
&855 & 578 & 1076 & 4497 & 759
& 324 & 58 & 256 & 120
%&855 & 578 & 1076
& 4497 & 759
%& 324 & 58 & 256 & 120
\\
\texttt{Thermolysin} & 2317 & 929
&429 & 184 & 315 & 116129 & 7064
& 3295 & 1438 & 2160 & 170
%&429 & 184 & 315
& 116129 & 7064
%& 3295 & 1438 & 2160 & 170
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Memory Performance on Machine Learning (ILP) Datasets}
\caption{Memory Performance on Machine Learning (ILP) Datasets: memory
usage is given in KB}
\label{tab:ilpmem}
\end{table*}
In general, one would wonder whether the benefits in time correspond
to costs in space. Figure~\ref{tab:ilpmem} shows memory performance at
a point near the end of execution. Numbers are given in KB. Because
dynamic memory expands and contracts, we chose a point where dynamic
memory should be at maximum usage. The first five columns show data
usage on static predicates. The leftmost sub-column represents the
code used for clause; the next sub-columns represent space used in
indices for static predicates: the first column gives total usage,
which consists of space used in the main tree, the expanded
wait-nodes, and hash-tables.
Table~\ref{tab:ilpmem} discusses the memory cost paid in using
\JITI. The table presents data obtained at a point near the end of
execution. Because dynamic memory expands and contracts, we chose a
point where memory usage should be at a maximum. The first two numbers
show data usage on \emph{static} predicates. Static data-base sizes
range from 146MB (\texttt{IE-Protein|_Extraction} to less than a MB
(\texttt{Choline}, \texttt{Krki}, \texttt{Mesh}). Indexing code can be
more than the original code, as in \texttt{Mutagenesis}, or almost as
much, eg, \texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction}. In most cases the YAP \JITI
adds at least a third and often a half to the original data-base. A
more detailed analysis shows the source of overhead to be very
different from dataset to dataset. In \texttt{IE-Protein|_Extraction}
the problem is that hash tables are very large. Hash tables are also
where most space is spent in \texttt{Susi}. In \texttt{BreastCancer}
hash tables are actually small, so most space is spent in
\TryRetryTrust chains. \texttt{Mutagenesis} is similar: even though
YAP spends a large effort in indexing it still generates long
\TryRetryTrust chains. Storing sets of matching clauses at \jitiSTAR
nodes takes usually over 10\% of total memory usage, but is never dominant.
Static data-base sizes range from 146MB to 666KB, the latter mostly in
system libraries. The impact of indexing code varies widely: it is
more than the original code for \texttt{Mutagenesis}, almost as much
for \texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction}, and in most cases it adds at
least a third and often a half to the original data-base. It is
interesting to check the source of the space overhead: if the source
are hash-tables, we can expect this is because of highly-complex
indices. If overhead is in \emph{wait-nodes}, this again suggests a
sophisticated indexing structure. Overhead in the main tree may be
caused by a large number of nodes, or may be caused by \texttt{try}
nodes.
One first conclusion is that \emph{wait-nodes} are costly space-wise,
even if they are needed to achieve sensible compilation times. On the
other hand, whether the space is allocated to the tree or to the
hashes varies widely. \texttt{IE-Protein\_Extraction} is an example
where the indices seem very useful: most space was spent in the
hash-tables, although we still are paying much for \emph{wait-nodes}.
\texttt{BreastCancer} has very small hash-tables, because it
attributes range over small domains, but indexing is useful (we
believe this is because we are only interested in the first solution
in this case).
This version of the ILP system stores most dynamic data in the IDB.
The size of reflects the search space, and is largely independent of
the program's static data (notice that small applications such as
\texttt{Krki} do tend to have a small search space). Aleph's author
very carefully designed the system to work around overheads in
This version of ALEPH uses the internal data-base to store the IDB.
The size of reflects the search space, and is to some extent
independent of the program's static data, although small applications
such as \texttt{Krki} do tend to have a small search space. ALEPH's
author very carefully designed the system to work around overheads in
accessing the data-base, so indexing should not be as important. In
fact, indexing has a much lower space overhead in this case,
suggesting it is not so critical. On the other hand, looking at the
actual results shows that indexing is working well: most space is
spent on hashes and the tree, little space is spent on \texttt{try}
instructions. It is hard to separate the contributions of JITI on
static and dynamic data, but the results for \texttt{Mesh} and
\texttt{Mutagenesis}, where the JITI probably has little impact on
static code, suggest a factor of two from indexing on the IDB in this
case.
suggesting it is not so critical. A more detailed analysis shows tha
indexing is working well: most space is spent on hashes tables and on
internal nodes of tree, and relatively little space is spent on
\TryRetryTrust chains.
Last, we discuss a natural language application, Van Noord's FSA
toolbox. This is an implementation of a set of finite state automata
for natural language tasks. The system includes a test suite with 150
tasks. We selected the 10 tasks with longer-running times in the
single argument version.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin {tabular}{|l|r|r||r|r|r||} \hline %\cline{1-3}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf Time in msec.} &
\multicolumn{3}{|c||}{\bf Dynamic Space in KB.} \\
{\bf Benchs.} & \bf $A_1$ & \bf JITI & \bf Clause & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf Indices} \\
& & & & \bf $A_1$ & \bf JITI \\
\hline
\texttt{k963} & 1944 & 684 & 1348 & 26 & 40 \\
\texttt{k961} & 1972 & 652 & 1348 & 26 & 40 \\
\texttt{k962} & 1996 & 668 & 1350 & 26 & 40 \\
\texttt{drg3} & 3532 & 3641 & 649 & 19 & 35 \\
\texttt{d2ph} & 3612 & 3667 & 649 & 19 & 35 \\
\texttt{d2m} & 3952 & 3668 & 649 & 19 & 35 \\
\texttt{ld1} & 4084 & 4016 & 649 & 19 & 35 \\
\texttt{dg5} & 6084 & 1352 & 3305 & 39 & 61 \\
\texttt{g2p} & 25212& 14120 & 10373 & 47 & 67 \\
\texttt{tl3} & 74476& 14925 & 14306 & 70 & 49 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance on a Natural Language Application}
\label{tab:fsa}
\end{table}
FSA is very different from the two previous examples. These are
relatively complex algorithms, and there is relatively little
``data''. Even so, Table~\ref{tab:fsa} shows significant speedups from
using JITI. Note that Table~\ref{tab:fsa} only shows memory
performance on dynamic data: static data does not show very
significant differences. The results show two different types of
tasks. In cases such as \texttt{tl3} or \texttt{dg5} JITI gives a
significant speedup; in tasks such as \texttt{drg3} the difference
does not seem to be significant, and it some cases JITI is slower.
Analysis show that the tasks that do well are the tasks that use
dynamic predicates. In this case, indexing is beneficial. Although
there is an increase in total code, the indices are good: there is a
reduction in the code for \texttt{try} instructions, and an increase
in code for hash-tables, which indicates dynamic predicates are
indexing well. In tasks such as \texttt{drg3} and friends, the JITI
does not bring much benefits, whereas it spends extra time compiling
and takes extra space.
\section{Concluding Remarks}