MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400227515 · doi:10.1145/3674843

SQL2FPGA: Automated Acceleration of SQL Query Processing on Modern CPU-FPGA Platforms

2024· article· en· W4400227515 on OpenAlexaff
Alec Lu, Jahanvi Narendra Agrawal, Zhenman Fang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Alliance for Accessible Golf
KeywordsComputer scienceSQLField-programmable gate arrayAccelerationSQL/PSMCentral processing unitDatabaseOperating systemQuery by ExampleEmbedded systemWeb search queryWorld Wide WebSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today’s big data query engines are constantly under pressure to keep up with the rapidly increasing demand for faster processing of more complex workloads. In the past few years, FPGA-based database acceleration efforts have demonstrated promising performance improvement with good energy efficiency. However, few studies target the programming and design automation support to leverage the FPGA accelerator benefits in query processing. Most of them rely on the SQL query plan generated by CPU query engines and manually map the query plan onto the FPGA accelerators, which is tedious and error-prone. Moreover, such CPU-oriented query plans do not consider the utilization of FPGA accelerators and could lose more optimization opportunities. In this article, we present SQL2FPGA, an FPGA accelerator-aware compiler to automatically map SQL queries onto the heterogeneous CPU-FPGA platforms. Our SQL2FPGA front-end takes an optimized logical plan of an SQL query from a database query engine and transforms it into a unified operator-level intermediate representation. To generate an optimized FPGA-aware physical plan, SQL2FPGA implements a set of compiler optimization passes to (1) improve operator acceleration coverage by the FPGA, (2) eliminate redundant computation during physical execution, and (3) minimize data transfer overhead between operators on the CPU and FPGA. Furthermore, it also leverages machine learning techniques to predict and identify the optimal platform, either CPU or FPGA, for the physical execution of individual query operations. Finally, SQL2FPGA generates the associated query acceleration code for heterogeneous CPU-FPGA system deployment. Compared to the widely used Apache Spark SQL framework running on the CPU, SQL2FPGA—using two AMD/Xilinx HBM-based Alveo U280 FPGA boards and Ver.2020 AMD/Xilinx FPGA overlay designs—achieves an average performance speedup of 10.1x and 13.9x across all 22 TPC-H benchmark queries in a scale factor of 1 GB (SF1) and 30 GB (SF30), respectively. While evaluated on AMD/Xilinx Alveo U50 FPGA boards, SQL2FPGA using Ver. 2022 AMD/Xilinx FPGA overlay designs also achieve an average speedup of 9.6x at SF1 scale factor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and SystemsSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207