I am currently using the SAX interface of the libxml library to parse a large number (around 60000) of XML documents less than 1Mb in size. I have chosen SAX as I thought it would be the most efficient. Would there be much of a difference in performance in this use case as with say a DOM parser?
Also, in my current approach I have an enum with a large number of states which I use in a switch statement in my startElement/endElement handlers. The number of states is growing quite large and becoming unmanageable. Is there a better way to handle this problem in libxml? For example, I've noticed some Java libraries allow you to create multiple instances of parsers so when you enter a certain element you can delegate to another parser for that particular element.
When you say "efficient", I guess you are talking about machine efficiency? But programmer efficiency is much more important, and as you've discovered, writing SAX applications to process complex XML requires a lot of complex code that is hard to develop and hard to debug.
You haven't said what the output of your processing should be. By default, I would start by writing it in the most programmer-efficient language available, typically XQuery or XSLT, and only resort to a lower-level language if you can't achieve the performance requirements that way.
Related
I state that my answer to the object question is Yes in my case is convinient but I ask here to the expert.
I developed a lot of plpgsql functions and just one in C but I already understood that the learning curve is definitely more sloped.
In may case I need a real developing language that plpgsql sometimes is not, but also I need performance otherwise I'd looked at python.
But here the question.
Mainly I need to retrieve data with some select and join, make elaboration on them, sametimes complex and return a table of data.
From the time of execution point of view is quicker a c function for this kind of use?
I apreciate any comment
luca
But here the question. Mainly I need to retrieve data with some select and join, make elaboration on them, sametimes complex and return a table of data.
I would go with pl/pgsql for this, as that's what it is designed for. In general, pl/pgsql performs very well within its problem domain, and I doubt you are likely to get significantly better performance by going with C. To the extent you can push your elaborations into the main query, all the better performance-wise.
This is assuming that your elaborations can be done with existing functions and not a huge amount of complex data manipulation (in particular, say, converting between datatypes, like arrays and sets). If that is the case, I would still put the main query and light manipulation in the pl/pgsql, and put the specific operations that need to be tuned in C. There are two reasons for doing this:
It means less C code, which means the C code is easier to read, follow, and prove correct.
It separates concerns so that you can use similar manipulations elsewhere.
There's a lot of performance tuning that has gone into pl/pgsql for its problem domain and reinventing all of that would be a lot of work both in development and testing. To the extent you can leverage tools that are already there you can get the performance you need with a lot less effort and a lot more in the way of guarantees.
EDIT
If you want to write PL/PGSQL code that performs well, you want to have it be a large main query with modest support logic. The more you can push into your query the better, and the more of your elaborations you can do in SQL (with possible C functions as mentioned above), the better. Not only does this mean better performance but it means better maintainability. As ArtemGr mentioned, certain operations are very expensive in PL/PGSQL. and in these cases you want to supplement with C code in order to get the performance you need.
I know C/C++ well and for me it's easier to write a PostgreSQL function in C++ than to learn the intricacies of pgSQL syntax and workaround its limitations. I'd say go with the language you (and the rest of your team) are more familiar with. C should be faster than pgSQL (and Tcl, Perl, Python) for complex data manipulation. Usually 5-10 times faster. Javascript (http://code.google.com/p/plv8js/) might be nearly as fast as C if it has a chance to spin it's JIT. Python code can actually use a Cython extension under the hood which might be nearly as fast as C.
You should probably measure how much time is spent in the data manipulation in question and relative to the time spent in the I/O before making a decision. In some domains C isn't faster, for example Tcl and Javascript has very good regular expression engines.
What are the recommended XML parsers for parsing a TMX file(XML based tilemap) in C?
What are the pros and cons of each, as I would like to have an efficient one because it will be running on an embedded system.
We used libxml on an embedded product a while back. It may be right for you.
On a high-level I think you should be looking at an event based parser rather than a DOM based one. DOM based parsers will take up a lot of memory building the XML tree.
Here's a from a similiar question. The top suggestion from that case looks to be one of the earliest xml parsers: Expat.
I have written sxmlc as a lightweight, potentially embeddable XML parser in C. See my answer on a related question (also linked by #PPC-Coder).
You can use it as DOM or SAX (to save memory), to parse either files or memory buffers.
Questions
I want to classify/categorize/cluster/group together a set of several thousand websites. There's data that we can train on, so we can do supervised learning, but it's not data that we've gathered and we're not adamant about using it -- so we're also considering unsupervised learning.
What features can I use in a machine learning algorithm to deal with multilingual data? Note that some of these languages might not have been dealt with in the Natural Language Processing field.
If I were to use an unsupervised learning algorithm, should I just partition the data by language and deal with each language differently? Different languages might have different relevant categories (or not, depending on your psycholinguistic theoretical tendencies), which might affect the decision to partition.
I was thinking of using decision trees, or maybe Support Vector Machines (SVMs) to allow for more features (from my understanding of them). This post suggests random forests instead of SVMs. Any thoughts?
Pragmatical approaches are welcome! (Theoretical ones, too, but those might be saved for later fun.)
Some context
We are trying to classify a corpus of many thousands of websites in 3 to 5 languages (maybe up to 10, but we're not sure).
We have training data in the form of hundreds of websites already classified. However, we may choose to use that data set or not -- if other categories make more sense, we're open to not using the training data that we have, since it is not something we gathered in the first place. We are on the final stages of scraping data/text from websites.
Now we must decide on the issues above. I have done some work with the Brown Corpus and the Brill tagger, but this will not work because of the multiple-languages issue.
We intend to use the Orange machine learning package.
According to the context you have provided, this is a supervised learning problem.
Therefore, you are doing classification, not clustering. If I misunderstood, please update your question to say so.
I would start with the simplest features, namely tokenize the unicode text of the pages, and use a dictionary to translate every new token to a number, and simply consider the existence of a token as a feature.
Next, I would use the simplest algorithm I can - I tend to go with Naive Bayes, but if you have an easy way to run SVM this is also nice.
Compare your results with some baseline - say assigning the most frequent class to all the pages.
Is the simplest approach good enough? If not, start iterating over algorithms and features.
If you go the supervised route, then the fact that the web pages are in multiple languages shouldn't make a difference. If you go with, say lexical features (bag-o'-words style) then each language will end up yielding disjoint sets of features, but that's okay. All of the standard algorithms will likely give comparable results, so just pick one and go with it. I agree with Yuval that Naive Bayes is a good place to start, and only if that doesn't meet your needs that try something like SVMs or random forests.
If you go the unsupervised route, though, the fact that the texts aren't all in the same language might be a big problem. Any reasonable clustering algorithm will first group the texts by language, and then within each language cluster by something like topic (if you're using content words as features). Whether that's a bug or a feature will depend entirely on why you want to classify these texts. If the point is to group documents by topic, irrespective of language, then it's no good. But if you're okay with having different categories for each language, then yeah, you've just got as many separate classification problems as you have languages.
If you do want a unified set of classes, then you'll need some way to link similar documents across languages. Are there any documents in more that one language? If so, you could use them as a kind of statistical Rosetta Stone, to link words in different languages. Then, using something like Latent Semantic Analysis, you could extend that to second-order relations: words in different languages that don't ever occur in the same document, but which tend to co-occur with words which do. Or maybe you could use something like anchor text or properties of the URLs to assign a rough classification to documents in a language-independent manner and use that as a way to get started.
But, honestly, it seems strange to go into a classification problem without a clear idea of what the classes are (or at least what would count as a good classification). Coming up with the classes is the hard part, and it's the part that'll determine whether the project is a success or failure. The actual algorithmic part is fairly rote.
Main answer is: try different approaches. Without actual testing it's very hard to predict what method will give best results. So, I'll just suggest some methods that I would try first and describe their pros and cons.
First of all, I would recommend supervised learning. Even if the data classification is not very accurate, it may still give better results than unsupervised clustering. One of the reasons for it is a number of random factors that are used during clustering. For example, k-means algorithm relies on randomly selected points when starting the process, which can lead to a very different results for different program runnings (though x-means modifications seems to normalize this behavior). Clustering will give good results only if underlying elements produce well separated areas in the feature space.
One of approaches to treating multilingual data is to use multilingual resources as support points. For example, you can index some Wikipedia's articles and create "bridges" between same topics in different languages. Alternatively, you can create multilingual association dictionary like this paper describes.
As for methods, the first thing that comes to mind is instance-based semantic methods like LSI. It uses vector space model to calculate distance between words and/or documents. In contrast to other methods it can efficiently treat synonymy and polysemy. Disadvantage of this method is a computational inefficiency and leak of implementations. One of the phases of LSI makes use of a very big cooccurrence matrix, which for large corpus of documents will require distributed computing and other special treatment. There's modification of LSA called Random Indexing which do not construct full coocurrence matrix, but you'll hardly find appropriate implementation for it. Some time ago I created library in Clojure for this method, but it is pre-alpha now, so I can't recommend using it. Nevertheless, if you decide to give it a try, you can find project 'Clinch' of a user 'faithlessfriend' on github (I'll not post direct link to avoid unnecessary advertisement).
Beyond special semantic methods the rule "simplicity first" must be used. From this point, Naive Bayes is a right point to start from. The only note here is that multinomial version of Naive Bayes is preferable: my experience tells that count of words really does matter.
SVM is a technique for classifying linearly separable data, and text data is almost always not linearly separable (at least several common words appear in any pair of documents). It doesn't mean, that SVM cannot be used for text classification - you still should try it, but results may be much lower than for other machine learning tasks.
I haven't enough experience with decision trees, but using it for efficient text classification seems strange to me. I have seen some examples where they gave excellent results, but when I tried to use C4.5 algorithm for this task, the results were terrible. I believe you should get some software where decision trees are implemented and test them by yourself. It is always better to know then to suggest.
There's much more to say on every topic, so feel free to ask more questions on specific topic.
which structure returns faster result and/or less taxing on the host server, flat file or database (mysql)?
Assume many users (100 users) are simultaneously query the file/db.
Searches involve pattern matching against a static file/db.
File has 50,000 unique lines (same data type).
There could be many matches.
There is no writing to the file/db, just read.
Is it possible to have a duplicate the file/db and write a logic switch to use the backup file/db if the main file is in use?
Which language is best for the type of structure? Perl for flat and PHP for db?
Addition info:
If I want to find all the cities have the pattern "cis" in their names.
Which is better/faster, using regex or string functions?
Please recommend a strategy
TIA
I am a huge fan of simple solutions, and thus prefer -- for simple tasks -- flat file storage. A relational DB with its indexing capabilities won't help you much with arbitrary regex patterns at all, and the filesystem's caching ensures that this rather small file is in memory anyway. I would go the flat file + perl route.
Edit: (taking your new information into account) If it's really just about finding a substring in one known attribute, then using a fulltext index (which a DB provides) will help you a bit (depending on the type of index applied) and might provide an easy and reasonably fast solution that fits your requirements. Of course, you could implement an index yourself on the file system, e.g. using a variation of a Suffix Tree, which is hard to be beaten speed-wise.
Still, I would go the flat file route (and if it fits your purpose, have a look at awk), because if you had started implementing it, you'd be finished already ;) Further I suspect that the amount of users you talk about won't make the system feel the difference (your CPU will be bored most of the time anyway).
If you are uncertain, just try it! Implement that regex+perl solution, it takes a few minutes if you know perl, loop 100 times and measure with time. If it is sufficiently fast, use it, if not, consider another solution. You have to keep in mind that your 50,000 unique lines are really a low number in terms of modern computing. (compare with this: Optimizing Mysql Table Indexing for Substring Queries )
HTH,
alexander
Depending on how your queries and your data look like a full text search engine like Lucene or Sphinx could be a good idea.
We are in evaluating technologies that we'll use to store data that we gather during the analysis of C/C++ code. In the case of C++, the amount of data can be relatively large, ~20Mb per TU.
After reading the following SO answer it made me consider that HDF5 might be a suitable technology for us to use. I was wondering if people here could help me answer a few initial questions that I have:
Performance. The general usage for the data will be write once and read "several" times, similar to the lifetime of a '.o' file generated by a compiler. How does HDF5 compare against using something like an SQLite DB? Is that even a reasonable comparison to make?
Over time we will add to the information that we are storing, but will not necessarily want to re-distribute a completely new set of "readers" to support a new format. After reading the user guide I understand that HDF5 is similar to XML or a DB, in that information is associated with a tag/column and so a tool built to read an older structure will just ignore the fields that it is not concerned with? Is my understanding on this correct?
A significant chunk of the information that we wish to write out will be a tree type of structure: scope hierarchy, type hierarchy etc. Ideally we would model scopes as having parents, children etc. Is it possible to have one HDF5 object "point" to another? If not, is there a standard technique to solve this problem using HDF5? Or, as is required in a DB, do we need a unique key that would "link" one object to another with appropriate lookups when searching for the data?
Many thanks!
How does HDF5 compare against using something like an SQLite DB?
Is that even a reasonable comparison to make?
Sort of similar but not really. They're both structured files. SQLite has features to support database queries using SQL. HDF5 has features to support large scientific datasets.
They're both meant to be high performance.
Over time we will add to the information that we are storing, but will not necessarily want to re-distribute a completely new set of "readers" to support a new format.
If you store data in structured form, the data types of those structures are also stored in the HDF5 file. I'm a bit rusty as to how this works (e.g. if it includes innate backwards compatibility), but I do know that if you design your "reader" correctly it should be able to handle types that are changed in the future.
Is it possible to have one HDF5 object "point" to another?
Absolutely! You'll want to use attributes. Each object has one or more strings describing the path to reach that object. HDF5 groups are analogous to folders/directories, except that folders/directories are hierarchical = a unique path describes each one's location (in filesystems w/o hard links at least), whereas groups form a directed graph which can include cycles. I'm not sure whether you can store a "pointer" to an object directly as an attribute, but you can always store an absolute/relative path as a string attribute. (or anywhere else as a string; you could have lookup tables galore if you wanted.)
We produce HDF5 data on my project, but I don't directly deal with it usually. I can take a stab at the first two questions:
We use a write once, read many times model and the format seems to handle this well. I know a project that used to write both to an Oracle database and HDF5. Eventually they removed the Oracle output since performance suffered and no one was using it. Obviously, SQLite is not Oracle, but the HDF5 format was better suited for the task. Based on that one data point, a RDBMS may be better tuned for multiple inserts and updates.
The readers our customers use are robust when we add new data types. Some of the changes are anticipated, but we don't have to worry about breaking thing when adding more data fields. Our DBA recently wrote a Python program to read HDF5 data and populate KMZ files for visualization in Google Earth. Since it was a project he used to learn Python, I'd say it's not hard to build readers.
On the third question, I'll bow to Jason S's superior knowledge.
I'd say HDF5 is a completely reasonable choice, especially if you are already interested in it or plan to produce something for the scientific community.