Table 6 Performance comparison with FEBRL
From: Efficient algorithms for fast integration on large data sets from multiple sources
| Â | 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 | Â | |||