KIPS Transactions on Software and Data Engineering (정보처리학회논문지:소프트웨어 및 데이터공학)

Korea Information Processing Society (한국정보처리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Technique for Concurrent Processing Graph Structure and Transaction Using Topic Maps and Cassandra

토픽맵과 카산드라를 이용한 그래프 구조와 트랜잭션 동시 처리 기법

  • 신재현 (성균관대학교 임베디드 소프트웨어학과)
  • Received : 2012.07.13
  • Accepted : 2012.10.14
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Relation in the new IT environment, such as the SNS, Cloud, Web3.0, has become an important factor. And these relations generate a transaction. However, existing relational database and graph database does not processe graph structure representing the relationships and transactions. This paper, we propose the technique that can be processed concurrently graph structures and transactions in a scalable complex network system. The proposed technique simultaneously save and navigate graph structures and transactions using the Topic Maps data model. Topic Maps is one of ontology language to implement the semantic web(Web 3.0). It has been used as the navigator of the information through the association of the information resources. In this paper, the architecture of the proposed technique was implemented and design using Cassandra - one of column type NoSQL. It is to ensure that can handle up to Big Data-level data using distributed processing. Finally, the experiments showed about the process of storage and query about typical RDBMS Oracle and the proposed technique to the same data source and the same questions. It can show that is expressed by the relationship without the 'join' enough alternative to the role of the RDBMS.

SNS, 클라우드, Web3.0과 같은 새로운 IT환경은 '관계(relation)'가 중요한 요소가 되고 있다. 그리고 이들 관계(relation)는 거래, 즉, 트랜잭션을 발생시킨다. 그러나 우리가 사용하고 있는 관계형 데이터베이스(RDBMS)나 그래프 데이터베이스는 관계(relation)를 나타내는 그래프 구조와 트랜잭션을 동시에 처리하지 못한다. 본 논문은 확장 가능한 복잡 네트워크 시스템에서 활용할 수 있는 그래프 구조와 트랜잭션을 동시에 처리할 수 있는 방법을 제안한다. 제안 기법은 토픽맵의 데이터 모델을 응용하여 그래프 구조와 트랜잭션을 동시에 저장하고 탐색한다. 토픽맵은 시멘틱 웹(Web3.0)을 구현하는 온톨로지 언어 중 하나로써, 정보자원들 사이의 연관 '관계(relation)'를 통해 정보의 네비게이터로써 활용되고 있다. 또한 본 논문에서는 컬럼형 데이터베이스인 카산드라를 이용하여 제안 기법의 아키텍처를 설계, 구현하였다. 이는 분산처리를 이용하여 빅데이터 레벨의 데이터까지 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위함이다. 마지막으로 대표적인 RDBMS인 오라클과 제안 기법을 동일한 데이터 소스, 동일한 질문에 대해 저장 및 질의를 하는 과정을 실험으로 보였다. 이는 조인(join) 없이 관계(relation)를 표현함으로써 RDBMS의 역할까지 충분히 대체 가능함을 보이고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ching-Yung Lin, Nan Cao, Shixia Liu, Spiros Papadimitriou, Jimeng Sun, and Xifeng Yan. Smallblue: Social network analysis for expertise search and collective intelligence. In ICDE, pp.1483.1486, 2009.
  2. Padhy, R. P., Patra, M. R., Satapathy, S. C., RDBMS to NoSQL: Reviewing Some Next-Generation Non-Relational Database's, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Sciences and Technology, 11(1):15-30, 2011.
  3. R. Angles, C. Gutierrez. Survey of graph database models. ACM Comput. Surv., 40(1), pp.1-39. 2008.
  4. GUTING, R. H. GraphDB: modeling and querying graphs in databases. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB). Morgan Kaufmann, pp.297-308, 1994.
  5. U Kang, C.E Tsourakakis, Ana Paula Appel, C Faloutsos,and Jure Leskovec. Radius plots for mining tera-byte scale graphs: Algorithms, patterns, and observations. SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, 2010.
  6. U. Kang, Hanghang Tong, Jimeng Sun, Ching-Yung Lin, and Christos Faloutsos. GBASE: a scalable and general graph management system. In ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pp.1091-1099, 2011.
  7. Sang-Kyu Noh, Jin-Su Park. 'Ontology'. god's Toy business. 2007(in Korean).
  8. National Information Society Agency. Standard Development of Korea Knowledge Portal Ontology. National Information Society Agency. 2006(in Korean).
  9. Pepper, S. and Moore, G (eds.): XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0. TopicMaps.Org, http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/, 2001.
  10. Yeo-Sam Park, Ok-Bae Chang, Sung-Kook Han. X-TOP:Design and Implementation of TopicMaps Platform for Ontology Construction on Legacy Systems. Journal of KIISE : Computing Practices and Letters, Vol.14, No.2, pp.130-142, Apr., 2008(in Korean).
  11. Kristof Kovacs. Cassandra vs MongoDB vs CouchDB vs Redis vs Riak vs HBase vs Membase vs Neo4j comparison. http://kkovacs.eu/cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vsredis. 2010.
  12. Hyung-Jun Kim, Jun-Ho Joe, Sung-Hwa Ahn, Byung-Jun Kim. 'Cloud Computing'. Acorn. 2010(in Korean).
  13. Daniel J. Abadi, Samuel Madden, and Nabil Hachem. Column-stores vs. row-stores: how different are they really? In SIGMOD Conference, pp.967.980, 2008.
  14. Dominic Williams. HBase vs Cassandra: why we moved. http://ria101.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/hbase-vs-cassandra-why-we-moved/
  15. Hewitt, Eben. 'Cassandra: the definitive guide'. O'Reilly Media. 2010.
  16. http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/API/
  17. http://www.tpc.org/tpch/spec/tpch2.14.4.pdf.
  18. B. F. Cooper, A. Silberstein, E. Tam, R. Ramakrishnan, and R. Sears. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb. In SoCC '10: Proceedings of the 1st ACM symposium on Cloud computing, pp.143-154, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.