NOCAP: Near-Optimal Correlation-Aware Partitioning Joins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storage-based joins are still commonly used today because the memory budget does not always scale with the data size. One of the many join algorithms developed that has been widely deployed and proven to be efficient is the Hybrid Hash Join (HHJ), which is designed to exploit any available memory to maximize the data that is joined directly in memory. However, HHJ cannot fully exploit detailed knowledge of the join attribute correlation distribution. In this paper, we show that given a correlation skew in the join attributes, HHJ partitions data in a suboptimal way. To do that, we derive the optimal partitioning using a new cost-based analysis of partitioning-based joins that is tailored for primary key - foreign key (PK-FK) joins, one of the most common join types. This optimal partitioning strategy has a high memory cost, thus, we further derive an approximate algorithm that has tunable memory cost and leads to near-optimal results. Our algorithm, termed NOCAP (Near-Optimal Correlation-Aware Partitioning) join, outperforms the state of the art for skewed correlations by up to 30%, and the textbook Grace Hash Join by up to 4×. Further, for a limited memory budget, NOCAP outperforms HHJ by up to 10%, even for uniform correlation. Overall, NOCAP dominates state-of-the-art algorithms and mimics the best algorithm for a memory budget varying from below √||relation|| to more than ||relation||.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".