Evaluating persistent memory range indexes
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
Persistent memory (PM) is fundamentally changing the way database index structures are built by enabling persistence, high performance, and (near) instant recovery all on the memory bus. Prior work has proposed many techniques to tailor index structure designs for PM, but they were mostly based on volatile DRAM with simulation due to the lack of real PM hardware. Until today is it unclear how these techniques will actually perform on real PM hardware. With the recent released Intel Optane DC Persistent Memory, for the first time, this paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of recent persistent index structures. We focus on B + -Tree-based range indexes and carefully choose four representative index structures for evaluation: wBTree, NV-Tree, BzTree and FPTree. These four tree structures cover a wide, representative range of techniques that are essential building blocks of PM-based index structures. For fair comparison, we used an unified programming model for all trees and developed PiBench , a benchmarking framework which targets PM-based indexes. Through empirical evaluation using representative workloads, we identify key, effective techniques, insights and caveats to guide the making of future PM-based index structures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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