Evaluating persistent memory range indexes
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".