MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965103467 · doi:10.1145/3335783.3335798

Keep Your Host Language Object and Also Query it

2019· article· en· W2965103467 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph Vinish D'silva, Florestan De Moor, Bettina Kemme

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRelational database management systemProgramming languageSQLQuery optimizationRelational databaseWorkflowInterpreterLanguage Integrated QueryQuery languageDatabaseQuery by ExampleInformation retrievalWeb search querySearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of prolific growth in data science and machine learning applications, modern relational database management systems (RDBMS) are experimenting with various approaches to facilitate advanced analytical computations, in addition to the relational operations that they traditionally support. The most common approach has been to integrate an embedded high level language (HLL) interpreter into the RDBMS along with any additional libraries that specialize in numerical computations. Such implementations, e.g., user defined functions (UDFs), follow generally a black-box setup, and for many complex workflows that require datasets to be passed and processed back-and-forth between the query execution engine and the embedded HLL interpreter, optimization opportunities are not fully explored yet. In this paper, we propose and implement the concept of virtual tables that can be used to expose data set objects maintained by the embedded HLL interpreter to the query engine for executing relational operations. Unlike prevalent solutions, our approach minimizes the need for performing data copies and conversions, performing them lazily when required. It also facilitates better optimization opportunities for the execution of SQL queries as the RDBMS is able to analyze the data characteristics of the HLL objects before producing an execution plan. The approach is also programmer friendly, allowing for a more intuitive implementation of computational workflows. We perform evaluations over a variety of workloads which demonstrate the performance and programming benefits of virtual tables.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207