Main-memory hash joins on multi-core CPUs: Tuning to the underlying hardware
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
The architectural changes introduced with multi-core CPUs have triggered a redesign of main-memory join algorithms. In the last few years, two diverging views have appeared. One approach advocates careful tailoring of the algorithm to the architectural parameters (cache sizes, TLB, and memory bandwidth). The other approach argues that modern hardware is good enough at hiding cache and TLB miss latencies and, consequently, the careful tailoring can be omitted without sacrificing performance. In this paper we demonstrate through experimental analysis of different algorithms and architectures that hardware still matters. Join algorithms that are hardware conscious perform better than hardware-oblivious approaches. The analysis and comparisons in the paper show that many of the claims regarding the behavior of join algorithms that have appeared in literature are due to selection effects (relative table sizes, tuple sizes, the underlying architecture, using sorted data, etc.) and are not supported by experiments run under different parameters settings. Through the analysis, we shed light on how modern hardware affects the implementation of data operators and provide the fastest implementation of radix join to date, reaching close to 200 million tuples per second.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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