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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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