4 ms·
Most data isn’t "big" and businesses are wasting money pretending it is
- rpedela 14y agoI completely agree. I have always hated the phrase "big data". It is a meaningless marketing phrase. As the article points out, very few IT companies have single data sets which are in terabyte or larger scale. Although the total size of their data may be in terabytes or higher, the size of an analyzed data set is usually in megabytes or gigabytes. You know who actually does "big data"? Physicists. There are some telescopes that generate terabytes of data per second. There are other scientific fields which generate very large, single data sets such as genomics, proteomics, climate, etc.
- twic 14y agoEven genomics isn't really that big. The human genome is three billion base pairs; that's 750 MB if packed as tightly as can be. The largest genome (that of _Paris japonica_) is 150 billion base pairs, 37.5 GB. You might be storing multiples of that amount of data if you are doing a shotgun sequence assembly, or looking at polymorphisms, but then you're likely to have no more than 10 copies, and i can't imagine you'd have more than 100 copies. For the human genome, 100 copies would be 75 GB, which is still only about four times the size of Team Fortress 2.
- rpedela 14y agoA single genome, true. But what if you wanted to compare 100,000 genomes of people with heart disease to find common genes for heart disease? Now you are at ~72 TB which I would consider big data. As far as I am aware, enough human genomes have not been sequenced to do that. But it is coming (I hope).
- twic 14y agoWell, you probably wouldn't do it that way, for starters. There is a mature toolkit of techniques for narrowing down the interesting bits of the genome, so you have less sequence to look at. But yes, the day will come when it's feasible to simply sequence and compare large numbers of genomes. But by the time sequencing technology has got that much better, so will computers have!
- comrade_ogilvy 14y agoIf you were doing blind correlations between all the raw data at once, it would be 72 TB. There are ~30k genes (encoded protein sequences). 100,000 human individuals may or may not have that many deltas per gene. The data is naturally structured. There is no reason to believe that looking at 72TB at once is useful. You would start by looking for correlations with particular genes. (Even correlations with random genes is merely 30,000 simple problems.) This kind of work can be done on a single multicore computer with a lot diskspace and memory, if you have the right tools.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- dweinus 14y agoMost data AREN'T big.
- scribu 14y agoActually, no; "data" can be either plural or singular. In this case, you can substitute "data" with "information", and "most information isn't big" definitely sounds grammatical. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data
- dweinus 14y agoThey may both be accepted, but as your link notes, the singular is avoided by most publications, and I think for good reason. The singular is not logical. In the case of "information", the word is already in singular form and describes a group, much like the word "flock" is a singular group of birds. On the other hand, "data" is a plural form of "datum". It follows that describing a group of data using a singular construction should require a different word or phrase, such as "data set".
- na85 14y agoI always thought "Big Data" referred to the industry, similar to the terms "Big Pharma" and "Big Tobacco": i.e., very large firms with very large budgets that focus on data science/storage, pharmaceuticals, or cancer sticks. Using "Big Data" as a noun to refer to actual data sets offends my grammatical senses.