CI-6226

Lecture 5 part 2.
Index Construction & Compressing
Information Retrieval and Analysis

Vasily Sidorov

1
 Ch. 5

Next up

• Collection statistics in more detail (with RCV1)

—How big will the dictionary and postings be?
• Dictionary compression
• Postings compression

2
 Ch. 5

Why compression (in general)?

• Use less disk space
—Saves a little money
• Keep more stuff in memory
—Increases speed
• Increase speed of data transfer from disk to
memory
—[read compressed data | decompress] is faster than
[read uncompressed data]
—Premise: Decompression algorithms are fast
◦ True for the decompression algorithms we use

3
 Ch. 5

Why compression for inverted indexes?

• Dictionary
—Make it small enough to keep in main memory
—Make it so small that you can keep some postings
lists in main memory too
• Postings file(s)
—Reduce disk space needed
—Decrease time needed to read postings lists from
disk
—Large search engines keep a significant part of the
postings in memory.
◦ Compression lets you keep more in memory
• We will devise various IR-specific compression schemes
4
 Sec. 4.2

Recall Reuters RCV1 Statistics

symbol statistic value
N documents 800,000
L avg. # tokens per doc 200
M terms (= word types) 400,000
avg. # bytes per token 6
(incl. spaces/punct.)
avg. # bytes per token 4.5
(without spaces/punct.)
avg. # bytes per term 7.5
non-positional postings 100,000,000

5
 Sec. 5.1

Index parameters vs. what we index

(details IIR Table 5.1, p.80)

size of word types (terms) non-positional positional postings

postings
dictionary non-positional index positional index
Size (K) ∆% cumul% Size (K) ∆% cumul% Size (K) ∆% cumul%
Unfiltered 484 109,971 197,879
No numbers 474 -2 -2 100,680 -8 -8 179,158 -9 -9
Case folding 392 -17 -19 96,969 -3 -12 179,158 0 -9
30 stopwords 391 -0 -19 83,390 -14 -24 121,858 -31 -38
150 stopwords 391 -0 -19 67,002 -30 -39 94,517 -47 -52
stemming 322 -17 -33 63,812 -4 -42 94,517 0 -52

Exercise: give intuitions for all the ‘0’ entries. Why do some zero entries
correspond to big deltas in other columns?
6
 Sec. 5.1

Lossless vs. lossy compression

• Lossless compression: All information is preserved
—What we mostly do in IR
• Lossy compression: Discard some information
—Several of the preprocessing steps can be viewed as
lossy compression:
◦ case folding, stop words, stemming, number
elimination
—Chapter 7: Prune postings entries that are unlikely to
turn up in the top k list for any query
◦ Almost no loss of quality for top k list

7
 Sec. 5.1

Vocabulary vs. collection size

• How big is the term vocabulary?
—That is, how many distinct words are there?
• Can we assume an upper bound?
—Not really… 26 letters, 20 positions: 2620 ≈ 294
possible variations
◦ Will require ~3x1014 petabytes
—In practice, the vocabulary will keep growing with
the collection size
—Especially with Unicode

8
 Sec. 5.1

Vocabulary vs. collection size

• Heaps’ law: M = kTb
—M is the size of the vocabulary,
—T is the number of tokens in the collection
—Typical values: 30 ≤ k ≤ 100 and b ≈ 0.5
• In a log-log plot of vocabulary size M vs. T, Heaps’
law predicts a line with slope about ½
—It is the simplest possible relationship between the
two in log-log space
—An empirical finding (“empirical law”)

9
 Sec. 5.1

Heaps’ Law M = kTb

For RCV1, the dashed line
log10M = 0.49 log10T + 1.64
is the best least squares fit.

Thus, M = 101.64T0.49 so
k = 101.64 ≈ 44 and b = 0.49.

Good empirical fit for

Reuters RCV1 !

For first 1,000,020 tokens,

law predicts 38,323 terms;
actually, 38,365 terms!

10
 Sec. 5.1

Exercises
• What is the effect of including spelling errors, vs.
automatically correcting spelling errors on Heaps’
law?
• Compute the vocabulary size M for this scenario:
—Looking at a collection of web pages, you find that
there are 3000 different terms in the first 10,000
tokens and 30,000 different terms in the first
1,000,000 tokens.
—Assume a search engine indexes a total of
20,000,000,000 (2 × 1010) pages, containing 200
tokens on average
—What is the size of the vocabulary of the indexed
collection as predicted by Heaps’ law? 11
 Sec. 5.1

Zipf’s law

• Heaps’ law gives the vocabulary size in collections.

• We also study the relative frequencies of terms.
• In natural language, there are
—a few very frequent terms, and
—A lot of very rare terms
• Zipf’s law: The ith most frequent term has frequency
proportional to 1/i .
—cfi ∝ 1/i = K/i where K is a normalizing constant
—cfi is collection frequency: the number of occurrences
of the term ti in the collection.

12
 Sec. 5.1

Zipf consequences
• If the most frequent term (the) occurs cf1 times
—then the second most frequent term (of) occurs
cf1/2 times
—the third most frequent term (and) occurs cf1/3
times …
• Equivalent: cfi = K/i where K is a normalizing factor,
so
—log cfi = log K - log i
—Linear relationship between log cfi and log i

—Another power law relationship

13
 Sec. 5.1

Zipf’s law for Reuters RCV1

14
 Ch. 5

Compression
•Now, we will consider compressing the space
for the dictionary and postings
—Basic Boolean index only
—Not considering positional indexes, etc.
—We will consider compression schemes

15
 Sec. 5.2

Why compress the dictionary?

• Search begins with the dictionary
• We want to keep it in memory
• Memory footprint competition with other
applications
• Embedded/mobile devices may have very little
memory
• Even if the dictionary isn’t in memory, we want it to
be small for a fast search startup time

So, compressing the dictionary is important

16
 Sec. 5.2

Dictionary storage - first cut

• Array of fixed-width entries
—~400,000 terms; 28 bytes/term = 11.2 MB.

Terms Freq. Postings ptr.

a 656,265
aachen 65
…. ….
zulu 221

Dictionary search 20 bytes 4 bytes each

structure Assuming, that almost no English words are longer than 20 characters

17
 Sec. 5.2

Fixed-width terms are wasteful

• Most of the bytes in the Term column are wasted –
we allocate 20 bytes for 1 letter terms
—And we still can’t handle supercalifragilisticexpialidocious or
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
• Written English averages ~4.5 characters/word
—Exercise: Why is/isn’t this the number to use for
estimating the dictionary size?
• Avg. dictionary word in English: ~8 characters
—How do we use ~8 characters per dictionary term?
• Short words dominate token counts but not type
average

18
 Compressing the term list:
Dictionary-as-a-String
◼ Store dictionary as a (long) string of characters:
◼ Pointer to next word shows end of current word
◼ Hope to save up to 60% of dictionary space.
….systilesyzygeticsyzygialsyzygyszaibelyiteszczecinszomo….

Freq. Postings ptr. Term ptr.

Total string length =
33
400K x 8B = 3.2MB
29
44
Pointers resolve 3.2M
126
positions: log23.2M =
22bits = 3bytes

19
Space for dictionary as a string
• 4 bytes per term for Freq
• 4 bytes per term for pointer to Postings
• 3 bytes per term pointer  Now avg. 11
 bytes/term,
• Avg. 8 bytes per term in term string  not 20

• 400K terms x 19  7.6 MB (against 11.2MB for

fixed width)

20
 Blocking
• Store pointers to every kth term string.
—Example below: k=4.
• Need to store term lengths (1 extra byte)
….7systile9syzygetic8syzygial6syzygy11szaibelyite8szczecin9szomo….

Freq. Postings ptr. Term ptr.

33
29
 Save 9 bytes Lose 4 bytes on
44  on 3 term lengths.
126  pointers.
7

21
Net savings
• Example for block size k = 4
• Where we used 3 bytes/pointer without blocking
—3 x 4 = 12 bytes,
now we use 3 + 4 = 7 bytes.
Shaved another ~0.5MB. This reduces the size of the
dictionary from 7.6 MB to 7.1 MB.
• We can save more with larger k
• Will cause slower term lookup
Exercise: Why is it slower? Estimate the performance impact of k
Exercise: Estimate the space usage (and savings compared to
7.6 MB) with blocking, for block sizes of k = 8 and 16
22
Front coding
• Front-coding:
—Sorted words commonly have a long common prefix
– store differences only
—(for last k-1 in a block of k)
8automata8automate9automatic10automation

→8automat*a1e2ic3ion 

Encodes automat Extra length

beyond automat.
Begins to resemble general string compression. 23
 Sec. 5.2

RCV1 dictionary compression summary

Technique Size in MB

Fixed width 11.2

Dictionary-as-String with pointers to every term 7.6

Also, blocking k = 4 7.1

Also, Blocking + front coding 5.9

24
 Sec. 5.3

Postings compression
• The postings file is much larger than the dictionary,
factor of at least 10
• Key goal: store each posting compactly
• A posting for our purposes is a docID
—For Reuters (800,000 documents), we would use 32
bits per docID when using 4-byte integers
—Alternatively, we can use log2 800,000 ≈ 20 bits per
docID
• Our goal: use far fewer than 20 bits per docID

25
 Sec. 5.3

Postings: two conflicting forces

• A term like arachnocentric occurs in maybe one doc
out of a million
—we would like to store this posting using
log2 1M ≈ 20 bits.
• A term like the occurs in virtually every doc, so 20
bits/posting is too expensive.
—Prefer 0/1 bitmap vector in this case

26
 Sec. 5.3

Postings file entry

• We store the list of docs containing a term in
increasing order of docID.
—computer: 33,47,154,159,202 …
• Consequence: it suffices to store gaps.
—33,14,107,5,43 …
• Hope: most gaps can be encoded/stored with far
fewer than 20 bits.

27
 Sec. 5.3

Three postings entries

28
 Sec. 5.3

Variable length encoding

• Aim:
—For arachnocentric, we will use ~20 bits/gap entry.
—For the, we will use ~1 bit/gap entry.
• If the average gap for a term is G, we want to use
~log2G bits/gap entry.
• Key challenge: encode every integer (gap) with
about as few bits as needed for that integer.
• This requires a variable length encoding
• Variable length codes achieve this by using short
codes for small numbers

29
 Sec. 5.3

Variable Byte (VB) codes

• For a gap value G, we want to use close to the
fewest bytes needed to hold log2 G bits
• Begin with one byte to store G and dedicate 1 bit in
it to be a continuation bit c
—If G ≤127, binary-encode it in the 7 available bits and
set c =1
—Else encode G’s lower-order 7 bits and then use
additional bytes to encode the higher order bits using
the same algorithm
—At the end set the continuation bit of the last byte
to 1 (c =1) – and for the other bytes c = 0.

30
 Sec. 5.3

Example
docIDs 824 829 215406
gaps 5 214577
VB code 00000110 10000101 00001101
10111000 00001100
10110001

Postings stored as the byte concatenation

000001101011100010000101000011010000110010110001

Key property: VB-encoded postings are

uniquely prefix-decodable

For a small gap (5), VB

uses a whole byte. 31
Other variable unit codes
• Instead of bytes, we can also use a different “unit of
alignment”: 32 bits (words), 16 bits, 4 bits (nibbles)
• Variable byte alignment wastes space if you have
many small gaps – nibbles do better in such cases
• Variable byte codes:
—Used by many commercial/research systems
—Good low-tech blend of variable-length coding and
sensitivity to computer memory alignment matches
(vs. bit-level codes, which we look at next)
• There is also recent work on word-aligned codes
that pack a variable number of gaps into one word
32
Unary code
• Represent n as n 1s with a final 0.
• Unary code for 3 is 1110.
• Unary code for 40 is
11111111111111111111111111111111111111110 .
• Unary code for 80 is:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111110

• This doesn’t look promising, but….

33
 Sec. 5.3

Gamma codes
• We can compress better with bit-level codes
—The Gamma code is the best known of these.
• Represent a gap G as a pair length and offset
• offset is G in binary, with the leading bit cut off
—For example 13 → 1101 → 101
• length is the length of offset
—For 13 (offset 101), this is 3.
• We encode length with unary code: 1110.
• Gamma code of 13 is the concatenation of length
and offset: 1110101
34
 Sec. 5.3

Gamma code examples

number length offset g-code
0 none
1 0 0
2 10 0 10 0
3 10 1 10 1
4 110 00 110 00
9 1110 001 1110 001
13 1110 101 1110 101
24 11110 1000 11110 1000
511 111111110 11111111 111111110 11111111
1025 11111111110 0000000001 11111111110 0000000001

35
 Sec. 5.3

Gamma code properties

• G is encoded using 2 log G + 1 bits
—Length of offset is log G bits
—Length of length is log G + 1 bits
• All gamma codes have an odd number of bits
• Almost within a factor of 2 of best possible, log2 G

• Gamma code is uniquely prefix-decodable, like VB

• Gamma code can be used for any distribution
• Gamma code is parameter-free

36
 Sec. 5.3

Gamma seldom used in practice

• Machines have word boundaries – 8, 16, 32, 64 bits
—Operations that cross word boundaries are slower
• Compressing and manipulating at the granularity of
bits can be slow
• Variable byte encoding is aligned and thus
potentially more efficient
• Regardless of efficiency, variable byte is
conceptually simpler at little additional space cost

37
 Sec. 5.3

RCV1 compression
Data structure Size in MB
dictionary, fixed-width 11.2
dictionary, term pointers into string 7.6
with blocking, k = 4 7.1
with blocking & front coding 5.9
collection (text, xml markup etc) 3,600.0
collection (text) 960.0
Term-doc incidence matrix 40,000.0
postings, uncompressed (32-bit words) 400.0
postings, uncompressed (20 bits) 250.0
postings, variable byte encoded 116.0
postings, g-encoded 101.0

38
 Sec. 5.3

Index compression summary

• We can now create an index for highly efficient
Boolean retrieval that is very space efficient
• Only 4% of the total size of the collection
• Only 10-15% of the total size of the text in the
collection
• However, we’ve ignored positional information
• Hence, space savings are less for indexes used in
practice
—But techniques substantially the same.

39
 Ch. 4

Resources for today’s lecture

• Chapters 4, 5 of IIR
• Original publication on MapReduce: Dean &
Ghemawat (2004)
• Original publication on SPIMI: Heinz and Zobel (2003)
• F. Scholer, H.E. Williams and J. Zobel. 2002.
Compression of Inverted Indexes For Fast Query
Evaluation. Proc. ACM-SIGIR 2002.
—Variable byte codes
• V. N. Anh and A. Moffat. 2005. Inverted Index
Compression Using Word-Aligned Binary Codes.
Information Retrieval 8: 151–166.
—Word aligned codes 40