MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1657379609 · doi:10.1109/ipdpsw.2015.21

Towards a Combined Grouping and Aggregation Algorithm for Fast Query Processing in Columnar Databases with GPUs

2015· article· en· W1657379609 on OpenAlexaff
Sina Meraji, John Keenleyside, Sunil Kamath, Bob Blainey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHash functionParallel computingAggregate (composite)AlgorithmsortDatabaseData structureOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Column-store in-memory databases have received a lot of attention because of their fast query processing response times on modern multi-core machines. Among different database operations, group by/aggregate is an important and potentially costly operation. Moreover, sort-based and hash-based algorithms are the most common ways of processing group by/aggregate queries. While sort-based algorithms are used in traditional Data Base Management Systems (DBMS), hash based algorithms can be applied for faster query processing in new columnar databases. Besides, Graphical Processing Units (GPU) can be utilized as fast, high bandwidth co-processors to improve the query processing performance of columnar databases. The focus of this article is on the prototype for group by/aggregate operations that we created to exploit GPUs. We show different hash based algorithms to improve the performance of group by/aggregate operations on GPU. One of the parameters that affect the performance of the group by/aggregate algorithm is the number of groups and hashing algorithm. We show that we can get up to 7.6x improvement in kernel performance compared to a multi-core CPU implementation when we use a partitioned multi-level hash algorithm using GPU shared and global memories.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207