MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151131744 · doi:10.14778/1687553.1687573

Efficient index compression in DB2 LUW

2009· article· en· W2151131744 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIndex (typography)WorkloadUnixDatabaseResponse timeData compressionMemory footprintReal-time computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In database systems, the cost of data storage and retrieval are important components of the total cost and response time of the system. A popular mechanism to reduce the storage footprint is by compressing the data residing in tables and indexes. Compressing indexes efficiently, while maintaining response time requirements, is known to be challenging. This is especially true when designing for a workload spectrum covering both data warehousing and transaction processing environments. DB2 Linux, UNIX, Windows (LUW) recently introduced index compression for use in both environments. This uses techniques that are able to compress index data efficiently while incurring virtually no performance penalty for query processing. On the contrary, for certain operations, the performance is actually better. In this paper, we detail the design of index compression in DB2 LUW and discuss the challenges that were encountered in meeting the design goals. We also demonstrate its effectiveness by showing performance results on typical customer scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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