Covering indexes for branching path queries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we ask if the traditional relational query acceleration techniques of summary tables and covering indexes have analogs for branching path expression queries over tree- or graph-structured XML data. Our answer is yes --- the forward-and-backward index already proposed in the literature can be viewed as a structure analogous to a summary table or covering index. We also show that it is the smallest such index that covers all branching path expression queries. While this index is very general, our experiments show that it can be so large in practice as to offer little performance improvement over evaluating queries directly on the data. Likening the forward-and-backward index to a covering index on all the attributes of several tables, we devise an index definition scheme to restrict the class of branching path expressions being indexed. The resulting index structures are dramatically smaller and perform better than the full forward-and-backward index for these classes of branching path expressions. This is roughly analogous to the situation in multidimensional or OLAP workloads, in which more highly aggregated summary tables can service a smaller subset of queries but can do so at increased performance. We evaluate the performance of our indexes on both relational decompositions of XML and a native storage technique. As expected, the performance benefit of an index is maximized when the query matches the index definition.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".