Set Containment Joins: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

91 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

On indexing error-tolerant set containment (2010, background): “We note that Jac-card containment is a generalization of exact set containment which has been studied extensively in prior work [11, 24, 25, 28].”
Efficient exact set-similarity joins (2006, background): “SSJoins are closely related to set-containment joins, which has been the subject of several previous work [17, 18, 20].”
XMark: A Benchmark for XML Data Management (2002, background): “Often, simple extensions to the product could have caused significant performance improvements [17].”
A Primitive Operator for Similarity Joins in Data Cleaning (2006, unknown): “0 (e.g., [12]).”
Efficient Merging and Filtering Algorithms for Approximate String Searches (2008, background): “Other related studies include [1], [2], [10], [9], [12], [13]”
Efficient set joins on similarity predicates (2004, methodology): “The optimizations used in our algorithm generalize to several weighted and unweighted measures of partial word overlap between sets.”
Asymmetric Minwise Hashing (2014, methodology): “Owing to its practical signiﬁcance, there have been many existing heuristics for solving the MIPS (or MCS) problem [30, 33, 12].”