Main-memory hash joins on multi-core CPUs: Tuning to the underlying hardware
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".