Computing closest common subexpressions for view selection problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting a set of views for materialization is a required task in many current database and data warehousing applications including the design of a data warehouse, and the maintenance of multiple materialized views. The selected views can be materialized permanently or transiently depending on the specific view selection problem. The view selection algorithms are expensive due to the size of the search space of the problem.In this paper we propose an approach for generating candidate views for materialization for view selection problems based on the definition of the input queries. We also provide rewritings of the input queries using the generated candidate views. In generating candidate views, we do not apply costbased techniques but we try to maximize the operations in the views. Subsequently, view selection algorithms can exploit problem dependent cost functions to choose among the generated candidate views. Our approach is not restricted to a specific view selection problem. Compared to a previous one, it generates views that involve more relation occurrences (or operations) and can reduce the size of the search space which can be very large. We implement our approach and we report some experimental evaluation with comparison to previous works.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it