Slingshot: A modular framework for designing data processing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional relational database engines have been losing ground to specialized data processing engines in virtually every market segment, from data warehousing, OLTP, and stream processing, to scientific applications. Although relational database engines are evolving to leverage new technologies and more efficient processing paradigms, the generality of a large monolithic engine often makes this a significant effort. Our aim is to delimit and decouple database engine components to design a more lightweight and flexible data processing engine that can support any application domain efficiently and without the effort of a complete redesign. We introduce Slingshot, a new data processing engine, where modularity and implementation flexibility are the top priority. Its core database engine is minimal and mainly handles inter-operation of the database components. Each component, abstracted by an interface, can be externally implemented and plugged into the framework as a module that handles the component's functionality. As a result, this allows designers the liberty to choose suitable features for their target applications, to drop excess functionality, and to optimize code independent of the rest of the engine. We compare Slingshot to a traditional RDBMS and to custom solutions on queries that are representative of three application types (spatial, OLAP, and OLTP). We show that Slingshot outperforms the RDBMS in most cases, while performing comparably in others. Furthermore, Slingshot performs better or comparable to custom solutions on most tests. Finally, Slingshot's flexibility allows us to efficiently leverage computer architectures such as GPUs for speeding up complex computational tasks.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".