HorseIR: bringing array programming languages together with database query processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relational database management systems (RDBMS) are operationally similar to a dynamic language processor. They take SQL queries as input, dynamically generate an optimized execution plan, and then execute it. In recent decades, the emergence of in-memory databases with columnar storage, which use array-like storage structures, has shifted the focus on optimizations from the traditional I/O bottleneck to CPU and memory. However, database research so far has primarily focused on CPU cache optimizations. The similarity in the computational characteristics of such database workloads and array programming language optimizations are largely unexplored. We believe that these database implementations can benefit from merging database optimizations with dynamic array-based programming language approaches. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a novel approach to optimize database query execution using a new array-based intermediate representation, HorseIR, that resides between database queries and compiled code. Furthermore, we provide a translator to generate HorseIR from database execution plans and a compiler that optimizes HorseIR and generates efficient code. We compare HorseIR with the MonetDB RDBMS, by testing standard SQL queries, and show how our approach and compiler optimizations improve the runtime of complex queries.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".