Including Bloom Filters in Bottom-up Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bloom filters are used in query processing to perform early data reduction and improve query performance. The optimal query plan may be different when Bloom filters are used, indicating the need for Bloom filter-aware query optimization. To date, Bloom filter-aware query optimization has only been incorporated in a top-down query optimizer and limited to snowflake queries. In this paper, we show how Bloom filters can be incorporated in a bottom-up cost-based query optimizer. We highlight the challenges in limiting optimizer search space expansion, and offer an efficient solution. We show that including Bloom filters in cost-based optimization can lead to better join orders with effective predicate transfer between operators. On a 100 GB instance of the TPC-H database, our approach achieved a 32.8% further reduction in latency for queries involving Bloom filters, compared to the traditional approach of adding Bloom filters in a separate post-optimization step. Our method applies to all query types, and we provide several heuristics to balance limited increases in optimization time against improved query latency.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".