Libpuzzle Indexing millions of pictures?

Question

its about the libpuzzle libray for php ( http://libpuzzle.pureftpd.org/project/libpuzzle ) from Mr. Frank Denis. I´am trying to understand how to index and store the data in

Answer 1

I am also working on libpuzzle in php and am having some doubts about how to generate the words from the image signatures. Jasons answer above seems right but I have a problem with this part:

// this will be run once for each image:
$cvec = puzzle_fill_cvec_from_file('img1.jpg');
$words = array();
$wordlen = 10; // this is $k from the example
$wordcnt = 100; // this is $n from the example
for ($i=0; $i<min($wordcnt, strlen($cvec)-$wordlen+1); $i++) {
    $words[] = substr($cvec, $i, $wordlen);
}

The signature vector is 544 letters long and with the above creation of words we are always using only the first 110 letters of it. Meaning we are indexing on behalf of the upper third of the image content if I understand this correctly.

If you read the original article (An Image Signature for any kind of Image) on which libpuzzle is based on, they explain that words should be generated "...possibly non-contiguous and overlapping". I am not sure if they mean non-contiguous and non-overlapping, or non-contiguous and overlapping...

But if they mean non-overlapping I guess the words should be spread out throughout the entire signature vector. It would also make more sense, as the vector is created by evaluating regions of the image left to right, top to bottom. And by spreading words across the entire vector would mean that you are considering the whole image rather just the upper part of it (if you generate all the words from the beginning of the vector).

Would love to hear how you guys understand this.

Answer 2

I've made a libpuzzle DEMO project on GitHub: https://github.com/alsotang/libpuzzle_demo.

The project use the way which Jason proposed above.

The database schema shows on: https://github.com/alsotang/libpuzzle_demo/blob/master/schema.sql

---

And I will give more information about libpuzzle's signature.

Now we have the two images, and let me calculate their signature.

The odd lines is for image 1(the left one), and the even lines is for image 2.

You can find that in most cases, the number in the same position is the same.

....

---

My english is so poor, so I cant express my mind continue...I think anyone who wanna index millions of images should inspect my GitHub repo of libpuzzle DEMO ..

Answer 3

I've experimented with libpuzzle before - got about as far as you. Didnt really start on a proper implementation. Was also unclear how exactly to do it. (and abandoned the project for lack of time - so didnt really persist with it)

Anyway, looking now, will try to offer my understanding - maybe between us we can work it out :)

Queries use a 2 stage process -

1. first you use the words table.
   1. take the 'reference' image and work out its signature.
   2. work out its component words,
   3. consult the words table to find all the possible matches. This can use the database engines 'indexes' for efficient queries.
   4. compile a list of all sig_ids. (will get some duplicates in 3. )
2. Then consult the signatures table
   1. retreive and decompress all possible from signatures (because you have a prefiltered list the number should be relatively small)
   2. use puzzle_vector_normalized_distance to work out an actual distance.
   3. sort and rank the results as required

(ie you only use compression on the signatures table. words remains uncompressed, so can run fast queries on it)

The words table is a form of inverted index. In fact I have in mind to use https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/sphinx instead the words database table, because that is designed specifically as a very fast inverted index.

... in theory anyway...

Answer 4

So, let's take a look at the example they give and try to expand.

Let's assume you have a table that stores information relating to each image (path, name, description, etc). In that table, you'll include a field for the compressed signature, calculated and stored when you initially populate the database. Let's define that table thus:

CREATE TABLE images (
    image_id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
    name TEXT,
    description TEXT,
    file_path TEXT NOT NULL,
    url_path TEXT NOT NULL,
    signature TEXT NOT NULL
);

When you initially compute the signature, you're also going to compute a number of words from the signature:

// this will be run once for each image:
$cvec = puzzle_fill_cvec_from_file('img1.jpg');
$words = array();
$wordlen = 10; // this is $k from the example
$wordcnt = 100; // this is $n from the example
for ($i=0; $i<min($wordcnt, strlen($cvec)-$wordlen+1); $i++) {
    $words[] = substr($cvec, $i, $wordlen);
}

Now you can put those words into a table, defined thus:

CREATE TABLE img_sig_words (
    image_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
    sig_word TEXT NOT NULL,
    FOREIGN KEY (image_id) REFERENCES images (image_id),
    INDEX (image_id, sig_word)
);

Now you insert into that table, prepending the position index of where the word was found, so that you know when a word matches that it matched in the same place in the signature:

// the signature, along with all other data, has already been inserted into the images
// table, and $image_id has been populated with the resulting primary key
foreach ($words as $index => $word) {
    $sig_word = $index.'__'.$word;
    $dbobj->query("INSERT INTO img_sig_words (image_id, sig_word) VALUES ($image_id,
        '$sig_word')"); // figure a suitably defined db abstraction layer...
}

Your data thus initialized, you can grab images with matching words relatively easily:

// $image_id is set to the base image that you are trying to find matches to
$dbobj->query("SELECT i.*, COUNT(isw.sig_word) as strength FROM images i JOIN img_sig_words
    isw ON i.image_id = isw.image_id JOIN img_sig_words isw_search ON isw.sig_word =
    isw_search.sig_word AND isw.image_id != isw_search.image_id WHERE
    isw_search.image_id = $image_id GROUP BY i.image_id, i.name, i.description,
    i.file_path, i.url_path, i.signature ORDER BY strength DESC");

You could improve the query by adding a HAVING clause that requires a minimum strength, thus further reducing your matching set.

I make no guarantees that this is the most efficient setup, but it should be roughly functional to accomplish what you're looking for.

Basically, splitting and storing the words in this manner allows you to do a rough distance check without having to run a specialized function on the signatures.