18 Mar 2012
It’s time for a new definition of big data
Two words seemingly on every technologist’s lips are “big data”. The Wikipedia definition for big data is: “In information technology, big data consists of datasets that grow so large that they become awkward to work with using on-hand database management tools”. This approach to describing the term constrains the discussion of big data to scale and fails to realise the key difference between regular data and big data. The blog posts and books which cover the topic seem to converge on the same approach to defining big data and describe the challenges with extracting value from this resource in terms of its size.
Big data can really be very small and not all large datasets are big! It’s time to find a new definition for big data.
Big data that is very small
Modern machines such as cars, trains, power stations and planes all have increasing numbers of sensors constantly collecting masses of data. It is common to talk of having thousands or even hundreds of thousands of sensors all collecting information about the performance and activities of a machine.
Imagine a plane on a regular one hour flight with a hundred thousand sensors covering everything from the speed of air over every part of the airframe through to the amount of carbon dioxide in each section of the cabin. Each sensor is effectively an independent device with its own physical characteristics. The real interest is usually in combinations of sensor readings (such as carbon dioxide combined with cabin temperature and the speed of air combined with air pressure). With so many sensors the combinations are incredibly complex and vary with the error tolerance and characteristics of individual devices.
The data streaming from a hundred thousand sensors on an aircraft is big data. However the size of the dataset is not as large as might be expected. Even a hundred thousand sensors, each producing an eight byte reading every second would produce less than 3GB of data in an hour of flying (100,000 sensors x 60 minutes x 60 seconds x 8 bytes). This amount of data would fit comfortably on a modest memory stick!
Large datasets that aren’t big
We are increasingly seeing systems that generate very large quantities of very simple data. For instance, media streaming is generating very large volumes with increasing amounts of structured metadata. Similarly, telecommunications companies have to track vast volumes of calls and internet connections.
Even if these two activities are combined, and petabytes of data is produced, the content is extremely structured. As search engines, such as Google, and relational databases have shown, datasets can be parsed extremely quickly if the content is well structured. Even though this data is large, it isn’t “big” in the same way as the data coming from the machine sensors in the earlier example.
Defining big data
If size isn’t what matters then what makes big data big? The answer is in the number of independent data sources, each with the potential to interact. Big data doesn’t lend itself well to being tamed by standard data management techniques simply because of its inconsistent and unpredictable combinations.
Another attribute of big data is its tendency to be hard to delete making privacy a common concern. Imagine trying to purge all of the data associated with an individual car driver from toll road data. The sensors counting the number of cars would no longer balance with the individual billing records which, in turn, wouldn’t match payments received by the company.
Perhaps a good definition of big data is to describe “big” in terms of the number of useful permutations of sources making useful querying difficult (like the sensors in an aircraft) and complex interrelationships making purging difficult (as in the toll road example).
Big then refers to big complexity rather than big volume. Of course, valuable and complex datasets of this sort naturally tend to grow rapidly and so big data quickly becomes truly massive.


March 19th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Rob – I agree with you that is about complexity not size. I think its also about the amount of value that can derived by innovative techniques. If applying innovative techniques doesn’t make a difference than I don’t think we’re dealing with a new model.
March 19th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Made a few quick edits here:
http://mike2.openmethodology.org/wiki/Big_Data_Definition
March 20th, 2012 at 4:42 am
Totally agree with it being about complexity and not size. Another way to look at it is the number of variables in an analytical problem. Statistical tools deal really well with large data sets, but don’t deal well if the number of variables goes beyond a reasonably sized list (multiple regression with 100 variables? ah, no!). Big data analysis tools must deal with hundreds of variables. One example of a project we worked on was to determine the root cause of nuclear leakage in nuclear power plants. Sample size was less than 7 (and there was obviously no appetite for even a single further data point), but number of variables potentially explaining the root cause of the leakages was in the hundreds. No standard statistical data analysis tool could was able to perform the massive computation, even with the help of supercomputers. But new tools based on grid computing for massive parallel computation and non statistical analytical algorithms were able to solve it.
So big data definition could be around:
- Complexity of data sources
- Complexity of interrelationships
- Number of variables to analyse
- Volume of data
March 23rd, 2012 at 6:57 pm
[...] of “big data” is as with many buzzwords not crystal clear as examined in a post called It’s time for a new definition of big data on Mike2.0 by Robert Hillard. The post suggests that big may be about volume, but is actually more [...]
March 27th, 2012 at 6:21 am
[...] article on Mike 2.0 blog by Mr. Robert Hillard, a Deloitte Principal and an author, titled “It’s time for a new definition of big data” talks about why Big Data does not mean “datasets that grow so large that they become [...]
April 7th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Big data, for me, is a perfect and simple statement of relativity. Do not try to define ‘big data’, just use the term to recognise how small and simplistic our current perspectives, technologies and strategies for data value management are.
Fact is as a profession we have not scraped the surface of the potential for IM.
Here’s to an interesting future!
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:34 pm
[...] internal and external market rather than standards. The result is big data (see my previous post, It’s time for a new definition of big data) which is as different from structured data as databases are from unstructured [...]
May 7th, 2012 at 9:41 am
I’ve now added material from this post to the Big Data Definition (http://mike2.openmethodology.org/wiki/Big_Data_Definition) and also linked the Wikipedia article back to MIKE2.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data).