MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399723139 · doi:10.1145/3665283.3665287

Learned Index Acceleration with FPGAs: A SMART Approach

2024· article· en· W4399723139 on OpenAlexaff
Geetesh More, Suprio Ray, Kenneth B. Kent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceIndex (typography)Embedded systemComputer architectureWorld Wide WebPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indexes in database systems such as B+trees and hash tables are designed for fast data retrieval. These are created on columns of a table and serve as a pointer to map a key to the position of a record on a table. Much research has been conducted on topics related to the faster index. A learned index is one such area of study. Learned index approaches can achieve significant performance improvement over traditional indexing techniques. However, query performance with learned indexes is limited by the constraints imposed by the CPU architecture. FPGAs, on the other hand, offer a suitable alternative by offering energy efficiency and potentially better performance. This paper proposes a new methodology that considers the advantages of the learned index and FPGAs. This methodology is called the Selective Mathematical Operation AcceleRaTion (SMART) approach with an FPGA for an end-to-end acceleration of learned indexes. Being a hybrid between a CPU approach and an FPGA approach, the SMART model of index acceleration achieves higher throughput than the CPU-based implementation while maintaining the data structure storage on the CPU. Our SMART approach accelerated the radix spline (RS) learned index using a single FPGA without any off-chip memory resources. The resulting index, called SMART-RS, achieves an overall speedup of 5.5 × as compared to a CPU-based RS index on the SOSD benchmark datasets.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207