Fig 1.
A flow chart describing all steps involved in RLA-CL.
Table 1.
A comparison among TPA(FCED), RLA and RLA-CL on simulated data sets (generated with a low error rate).
Fig 2.
A comparison of running times of TPA(FCED), RLA and RLA-CL on simulated data sets (generated with a low error rate).
Fig 3.
A comparison of Type I accuracies of TPA(FCED), RLA and RLA-CL on simulated data sets (generated with a low error rate).
Table 2.
blackComputation of accuracy of TPA(FCED), RLA and RLA-CL on simulated data sets (generated with a low error rate).
Fig 4.
A comparison of accuracies of TPA(FCED), RLA and RLA-CL on simulated data sets (generated with a low error rate).
Table 3.
A comparison among TPA(FCED), RLA and RLA-CL on simulated data sets (generated with a very high error rate).
Table 4.
A comparison of runtime and accuracy using SSN-LN, SSN and LN as blocking fields.
Fig 5.
A comparison of running time for variations of blocking attributes.
Fig 6.
A comparison of Type I accuracy for variations of blocking attributes.
Table 5.
Distribution of running time when blocking on SSN field.
Fig 7.
Running time distribution of RLA-CL.
Fig 8.
Running time of PRLA-CL for 3.2M and 6.4M records.
Fig 9.
Speedup of PRLA-CL for 3.2M and 6.4M records.
Table 6.
Distribution of running time on multiple cores.