Performance evaluation of nested-loop join processing on networks of workstations
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
Networks of workstations (NOWs) are attractive for parallel processing due to their cost advantage. This paper investigates the performance issues in processing join operations and the inherent tradeoff in the networked workstation environment. Specifically, we look at the performance of the nested-loop join algorithm. Since NOWs are heterogeneous in nature, load sharing is important for their performance. We evaluated the performance of three load sharing methods: static equal, static proportional and dynamic scheduling with fixed-chunk size. The three scheduling methods are evaluated on an experimental heterogeneous network of workstations with non-query background loads. Our experimental result suggest that, when there is no background load, dynamic scheduling outperforms static equal scheduling (up to 40%) and marginally better (about 10% better speedup) than the static proportional scheduling. When there is dynamic background load on nodes, dynamic scheduling provides substantial performance improvement over the static proportional scheduling (up to 50%) and static equal scheduling (up to about 100%). In all cases, selection of an appropriate chunk size is important in dynamic scheduling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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