Performance Analysis and Automatic Tuning of Hash Aggregation on GPUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hash aggregation is an important data processing primitive which can be significantly accelerated by modern graphics processors (GPUs). Previous work derived heuristics for GPU-accelerated hash aggregation from the study of a particular GPU. In this paper, we examine the influence of different execution parameters on GPU-accelerated hash aggregation on four NVIDIA and two AMD GPUs based on six different microarchitectures. While we are able to replicate some of the previous results, our main finding is that optimal execution parameters are highly GPU-dependent. Most importantly, execution parameters optimized for a specific GPU are up to 21x slower on other GPUs. Given this hardware dependency, we present an algorithm to optimize execution parameters at runtime. On average, our algorithm converges on a result in less than 1% of the time required for a full evaluation of the search space. In this time, it finds execution parameters that are at most 1% slower than the optimum in 90% of our experiments. In the worst case, our algorithm finds execution parameters that are at most 1.29x slower than the optimum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".