A Learned Approach to Index Algorithm Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent surge in learned index algorithms, along-side traditional indexes, has greatly diversified indexing options to support query processing in databases. Despite the rapid expansion of learned indexes, there remains a significant gap in tools for index algorithm selection. Traditional research on index selection has largely focused on recommending which columns to index, as the choice between algorithms like B+tree or hash index was once straightforward. This was managed through basic rules or experiential judgment, given the historically limited options. However, this approach is inadequate today, due to the growing diversity and complexity of index algorithms. In this paper, we introduce a Learned INDex Algorithm Selector, LINDAS. Taking a learned approach, LINDAS uniquely focuses on automatically selecting the most suitable index algorithm for a specific column, that satisfies diverse performance objectives in a wide range of applications. We explore the design space of LINDAS, employing a carefully designed featurization approach to capture both data-and workload-specific characteristics with attention mechanisms, as well as the meta-features of index algorithms. Two variants of LINDAS are designed to cater to diverse scenarios and adapt readily to new datasets, workloads, and emerging index algorithms. Comprehensive evaluations of LINDAS across various datasets and workloads demonstrate its effectiveness and superiority compared to applicable baselines.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".