BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Andreas Kipf

Andreas Kipf contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
DatabasesMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

LSI: A Learned Secondary Index Structure

Learned index structures have been shown to achieve favorable lookup performance and space consumption compared to their traditional counterparts such as B-trees. However, most learned index studies have focused on the primary indexing setting, where the base data is sorted. In this work, we investigate whether learned indexes sustain their advantage in the secondary indexing setting. We introduce Learned Secondary Index (LSI), a first attempt to use learned indexes for indexing unsorted data. LSI works by building a learned index over a permutation vector, which allows binary search to performed on the unsorted base data using random access. We additionally augment LSI with a fingerprint vector to accelerate equality lookups. We show that LSI achieves comparable lookup performance to state-of-the-art secondary indexes while being up to 6x more space efficient.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Flow-Loss: Learning Cardinality Estimates That Matter

Previous approaches to learned cardinality estimation have focused on improving average estimation error, but not all estimates matter equally. Since learned models inevitably make mistakes, the goal should be to improve the estimates that make the biggest difference to an optimizer. We introduce a new loss function, Flow-Loss, that explicitly optimizes for better query plans by approximating the optimizer's cost model and dynamic programming search algorithm with analytical functions. At the heart of Flow-Loss is a reduction of query optimization to a flow routing problem on a certain plan graph in which paths correspond to different query plans. To evaluate our approach, we introduce the Cardinality Estimation Benchmark, which contains the ground truth cardinalities for sub-plans of over 16K queries from 21 templates with up to 15 joins. We show that across different architectures and databases, a model trained with Flow-Loss improves the cost of plans (using the PostgreSQL cost model) and query runtimes despite having worse estimation accuracy than a model trained with Q-Error. When the test set queries closely match the training queries, both models improve performance significantly over PostgreSQL and are close to the optimal performance (using true cardinalities). However, the Q-Error trained model degrades significantly when evaluated on queries that are slightly different (e.g., similar but not identical query templates), while the Flow-Loss trained model generalizes better to such situations. For example, the Flow-Loss model achieves up to 1.5x better runtimes on unseen templates compared to the Q-Error model, despite leveraging the same model architecture and training data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

The Case for Distance-Bounded Spatial Approximations

Spatial approximations have been traditionally used in spatial databases to accelerate the processing of complex geometric operations. However, approximations are typically only used in a first filtering step to determine a set of candidate spatial objects that may fulfill the query condition. To provide accurate results, the exact geometries of the candidate objects are tested against the query condition, which is typically an expensive operation. Nevertheless, many emerging applications (e.g., visualization tools) require interactive responses, while only needing approximate results. Besides, real-world geospatial data is inherently imprecise, which makes exact data processing unnecessary. Given the uncertainty associated with spatial data and the relaxed precision requirements of many applications, this vision paper advocates for approximate spatial data processing techniques that omit exact geometric tests and provide final answers solely on the basis of (fine-grained) approximations. Thanks to recent hardware advances, this vision can be realized today. Furthermore, our approximate techniques employ a distance-based error bound, i.e., a bound on the maximum spatial distance between false (or missing) and exact results which is crucial for meaningful analyses. This bound allows to control the precision of the approximation and trade accuracy for performance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

RadixSpline: A Single-Pass Learned Index

Recent research has shown that learned models can outperform state-of-the-art index structures in size and lookup performance. While this is a very promising result, existing learned structures are often cumbersome to implement and are slow to build. In fact, most approaches that we are aware of require multiple training passes over the data. We introduce RadixSpline (RS), a learned index that can be built in a single pass over the data and is competitive with state-of-the-art learned index models, like RMI, in size and lookup performance. We evaluate RS using the SOSD benchmark and show that it achieves competitive results on all datasets, despite the fact that it only has two parameters.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Case for Learned Spatial Indexes

Spatial data is ubiquitous. Massive amounts of data are generated every day from billions of GPS-enabled devices such as cell phones, cars, sensors, and various consumer-based applications such as Uber, Tinder, location-tagged posts in Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. This exponential growth in spatial data has led the research community to focus on building systems and applications that can process spatial data efficiently. In the meantime, recent research has introduced learned index structures. In this work, we use techniques proposed from a state-of-the art learned multi-dimensional index structure (namely, Flood) and apply them to five classical multi-dimensional indexes to be able to answer spatial range queries. By tuning each partitioning technique for optimal performance, we show that (i) machine learned search within a partition is faster by 11.79\% to 39.51\% than binary search when using filtering on one dimension, (ii) the bottleneck for tree structures is index lookup, which could potentially be improved by linearizing the indexed partitions (iii) filtering on one dimension and refining using machine learned indexes is 1.23x to 1.83x times faster than closest competitor which filters on two dimensions, and (iv) learned indexes can have a significant impact on the performance of low selectivity queries while being less effective under higher selectivities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access