MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312277017 · doi:10.14778/3551793.3551808

Evaluating persistent memory range indexes

2022· article· en· W4312277017 on OpenAlexaff
Yuliang He, Duo Lü, Kaisong Huang, Tianzheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramComputer scienceScalabilityLatency (audio)CAS latencyRange (aeronautics)Embedded systemMemory controllerComputer hardwareOperating systemSemiconductor memoryTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scalable persistent memory (PM) has opened up new opportunities for building indexes that operate and persist data directly on the memory bus, potentially enabling instant recovery, low latency and high throughput. When real PM hardware (Intel Optane Persistent Memory) first became available, previous work evaluated PM indexes proposed in the pre-Optane era. Since then, newer indexes based on real PM have appeared, but it is unclear how they compare to each other and to previous proposals, and what further challenges remain. This paper addresses these issues by analyzing and experimentally evaluating state-of-the-art PM range indexes built for real PM. We find that newer designs inherited past techniques with new improvements, but do not necessarily outperform pre-Optane era proposals. Moreover, PM indexes are often very competitive with or even outperform indexes tailored for DRAM, highlighting the potential of using a unified design for both PM and DRAM. Functionality-wise, these indexes still lack good support for variable-length keys and handling NUMA effect. Based on our findings, we distill new design principles and highlight future directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207