MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391055211 · doi:10.1145/3641832.3641842

Future Database Engine Development: You Will Only Need One Programming Language

2023· article· en· W4391055211 on OpenAlexaff
Tianzheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMOD Record · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSPARK (programming language)DatabaseJavaProgramming languageProductivityOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Database systems must make good use of the hardware for high performance. This is usually done by implementing their core components (storage engine, optimizer and query execution engine) in a low-level programming language (PL) such as C/C++ that can directly "talk to the hardware." But these PLs traditionally lacked high-level abstractions, lowering DBMS developer productivity. Some systems [18, 16, 10] then mix different PLs to balance productivity and performance. For example, Presto [16] and Spark [18] originally used Java but are now replacing their query engines with new ones [12, 1] built in C++ for higher performance. However, doing so brings such non-trivial challenges as interacting with different PL runtimes [1].

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGMOD RecordSame topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207