TY - JOUR
T1 - Review
T2 - Big data techniques of google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter
AU - Hewage, Thulara N.
AU - Halgamuge, Malka N.
AU - Syed, Ali
AU - Ekici, Gullu
N1 - Includes bibliographical references.
PY - 2018/2
Y1 - 2018/2
N2 - Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter gained enormous advantages from big data methodologies and techniques. There are certain unanswered questions regarding the process of big data, however, not much research has been undertaken in this area yet. This review will perform a comparative analysis based on big data techniques obtained from sixteen peer-reviewed scientific publications (2007-2015) about social media companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter to undertake a comparative analysis. Google has invented many techniques by using big data methods to strategize against competitors. Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter are partially similar companies that use big data despite their own business model requirements. As an illustration, Google required the data “ware housing” approach to store trillion of data related to Facebook, since Facebook owns more than one billion users and Twitter owns 300 million active users correspondingly equally to Amazon. Since all these organization required data ware house approach, Google has preferred the variation of data ware house storages (Spanner, Photon, Fusion table) variation of data transaction methods. By using these data ware house storage approaches (F1 for execute queries via SQL) and communication of different approached such as, Yedalog. Facebook and Twitter are both the only social media companies that have different requirements. The requirement of big data is high and these entire requirements partially depend on each another as it is completely isolated. This study is a useful reference for many researchers to identify the differences of big data approaches and technological analysis in comparison to Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon big data techniques and outline their, variations and similarities analysis.
AB - Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter gained enormous advantages from big data methodologies and techniques. There are certain unanswered questions regarding the process of big data, however, not much research has been undertaken in this area yet. This review will perform a comparative analysis based on big data techniques obtained from sixteen peer-reviewed scientific publications (2007-2015) about social media companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter to undertake a comparative analysis. Google has invented many techniques by using big data methods to strategize against competitors. Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter are partially similar companies that use big data despite their own business model requirements. As an illustration, Google required the data “ware housing” approach to store trillion of data related to Facebook, since Facebook owns more than one billion users and Twitter owns 300 million active users correspondingly equally to Amazon. Since all these organization required data ware house approach, Google has preferred the variation of data ware house storages (Spanner, Photon, Fusion table) variation of data transaction methods. By using these data ware house storage approaches (F1 for execute queries via SQL) and communication of different approached such as, Yedalog. Facebook and Twitter are both the only social media companies that have different requirements. The requirement of big data is high and these entire requirements partially depend on each another as it is completely isolated. This study is a useful reference for many researchers to identify the differences of big data approaches and technological analysis in comparison to Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon big data techniques and outline their, variations and similarities analysis.
KW - Amazon
KW - Big data
KW - Big data techniques
KW - Social networks
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042522629&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042522629&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.12720/jcm.13.2.94-100
DO - 10.12720/jcm.13.2.94-100
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85042522629
SN - 1796-2021
VL - 13
SP - 94
EP - 100
JO - Journal of Communications
JF - Journal of Communications
IS - 2
ER -