Table 6 Performance comparison with FEBRL
From: Efficient algorithms for fast integration on large data sets from multiple sources
| Acc. | Time(ms) | Acc. | Time(ms) | Acc. | Time(ms) | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100.0% | 766 | 100.0% | 3766 | 100.0% | 8735 | DSI(FCED) + EDname | |
| 99.0% | 2125 | 100.0% | 11171 | 100.0% | 15922 | DSI(FCED) + EDall | |
| Our | 99.0% | 2563 | 98.2% | 9172 | 97.7% | 20391 | DSI (FCED) + NDED |
| Algorithms | 100.0% | 187 | 100.0% | 250 | 100.0% | 469 | TPA(FCED) + EDname |
| 100.0% | 234 | 100.0% | 453 | 100.0% | 828 | TPA(FCED) + EDall | |
| 99.2% | 203 | 98.4% | 516 | 98.0% | 1047 | TPA (FCED) + NDED | |
| FEBRL | 100.0% | 40438 | 100.0% | 173597 | - | >15 min | no blocking |
| 100.0% | 1284 | 100.0% | 2284 | 100.0% | 3265 s | With blocking | |
| Size | 1000 vs. 1000 | 2000 vs. 2000 | 3000 vs. 3000 | ||||