A+ Indexes: Tunable and Space-Efficient Adjacency Lists in Graph Database Management Systems
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
Graph database management systems (GDBMSs) are highly optimized to perform fast traversals, i.e., joins of vertices with their neighbours, by indexing the neighbourhoods of vertices in adjacency lists. However, existing GDBMSs have system-specific and fixed adjacency list structures, which makes each system efficient on only a fixed set of workloads. We describe a new tunable indexing subsystem for GDBMSs, we call A+ indexes, with materialized view support. The subsystem consists of two types of indexes: (i) vertex-partitioned indexes that partition 1-hop materialized views into adjacency lists on either the source or destination vertex IDs; and (ii) edge-partitioned indexes that partition 2-hop views into adjacency lists on one of the edge IDs. As in existing GDBMSs, a system by default requires one forward and one backward vertex-partitioned index, which we call the primary A+ index. Users can tune the primary index or secondary indexes by adding nested partitioning and sorting criteria. Our secondary indexes are space-efficient and use a technique we call offset lists. Our indexing subsystem allows a wider range of applications to benefit from GDBMSs' fast join capabilities. We demonstrate the tunability and space efficiency of A+ indexes through extensive experiments on three workloads.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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