pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.05443 · v1 · pith:2DSINRXOnew · submitted 2019-07-11 · 💻 cs.DB · cs.LG

Learning Key-Value Store Design

Stratos Idreos , Niv Dayan , Wilson Qin , Mali Akmanalp , Sophie Hilgard , Andrew Ross , James Lennon , Varun Jain
show 3 more authors
Harshita Gupta David Li Zichen Zhu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 22:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DB cs.LG
keywords key-value storesdata structuresdesign continuumLSM-treeB+treeself-designing systemsdata layoutperformance modeling
0
0 comments X

The pith

A design continuum unifies distinct key-value store data structures as views of one space built from a small set of layout concepts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces design continuums for the data layout of key-value stores. It shows that major structures such as B+trees, B-epsilon-trees, LSM-trees, and LSH-tables arise from the same small set of fundamental design principles and can be synthesized from them. This view turns what had been treated as separate inventions into points inside a single model that also supports creation of new designs. The model supplies a fast inference engine that predicts how a design change affects performance or selects the best structure for a workload and memory budget. The result is a route to self-designing key-value stores that can switch between structures to match changing conditions.

Core claim

All data structures arise from the very same set of fundamental design principles, i.e., a small set of data layout design concepts out of which we can synthesize any design that exists in the literature as well as new ones. The first such continuum unifies B+tree, B-epsilon-tree, LSM-tree, and LSH-table.

What carries the argument

The design continuum, a model built from a fixed small set of data layout design concepts that generates both known and novel key-value store structures.

If this is right

  • Near-instant prediction of how a change in underlying storage design affects performance.
  • Selection of the optimal data structure given workload characteristics and a memory budget.
  • Self-designing key-value stores that transition between drastically different designs to assume diverse performance properties.
  • Generation of new data structure designs with performance properties not feasible by existing designs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same continuum construction process could be applied to other database components such as indexing or query execution.
  • Automated search over the continuum might reveal performance trade-offs that manual design overlooks.
  • Hardware evolution could be handled by re-deriving the best point in the continuum for the new device.

Load-bearing premise

Every existing and future key-value store data structure can be generated from one small fixed set of layout design concepts without loss of important performance distinctions.

What would settle it

A concrete data structure whose performance cannot be matched or predicted by any combination of parameters inside the proposed continuum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.05443 by Andrew Ross, David Li, Harshita Gupta, James Lennon, Mali Akmanalp, Niv Dayan, Sophie Hilgard, Stratos Idreos, Varun Jain, Wilson Qin, Zichen Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: From performance trade-offs to data structures, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: From data layout design principles to the de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An example of a design continuum: connecting complex designs with few continuous parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Instances of the design continuum and examples of their derived cost metrics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constructing a design continuum: from design parameters to a performance hyperplane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Extending the design continuum to support Log Structured Hash table designs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Instances of the extended design continuum and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Leveled LSM-tree dominates LSB-tree for most of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Potential benefit of on-the-fly transitions between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Navigating memory allocation by learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Various instantiations of the super-structure from the design continuum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Tradeoff Between Merge Sort (Upper Right) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Diverse set of workloads used for benchmarking. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Discover-Decay simulation results overlaid with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Uniform and Round-Robin simulation results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Zipf simulation results overlaid with gradient es [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Estimated change in I/Os when moving bits from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Light-footprint statistical estimations of the gradient vs. simulated results for cache, Bloom filters, and the write [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce the concept of design continuums for the data layout of key-value stores. A design continuum unifies major distinct data structure designs under the same model. The critical insight and potential long-term impact is that such unifying models 1) render what we consider up to now as fundamentally different data structures to be seen as views of the very same overall design space, and 2) allow seeing new data structure designs with performance properties that are not feasible by existing designs. The core intuition behind the construction of design continuums is that all data structures arise from the very same set of fundamental design principles, i.e., a small set of data layout design concepts out of which we can synthesize any design that exists in the literature as well as new ones. We show how to construct, evaluate, and expand, design continuums and we also present the first continuum that unifies major data structure designs, i.e., B+tree, B-epsilon-tree, LSM-tree, and LSH-table. The practical benefit of a design continuum is that it creates a fast inference engine for the design of data structures. For example, we can predict near instantly how a specific design change in the underlying storage of a data system would affect performance, or reversely what would be the optimal data structure (from a given set of designs) given workload characteristics and a memory budget. In turn, these properties allow us to envision a new class of self-designing key-value stores with a substantially improved ability to adapt to workload and hardware changes by transitioning between drastically different data structure designs to assume a diverse set of performance properties at will.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the concept of design continuums for the data layout of key-value stores. It claims that a small fixed set of fundamental data layout design concepts can synthesize any existing design in the literature (demonstrated for B+tree, B-epsilon-tree, LSM-tree, and LSH-table) as well as new designs, unifying what were previously seen as distinct structures under one model. This enables a fast inference engine to predict performance effects of design changes or select optimal designs given workload and memory constraints, supporting a vision of self-designing key-value stores that adapt by transitioning between designs.

Significance. If the unification holds without gaps or loss of performance distinctions, the work provides a principled way to explore the design space of data structures and could enable more adaptive database systems. The practical inference engine for near-instant performance prediction is a concrete strength if the underlying model is complete and parameter-free in the claimed sense.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The central claim (abstract) that 'a small set of data layout design concepts' suffices to synthesize 'any design that exists in the literature as well as new ones' is load-bearing but unsupported by a completeness argument or expansion procedure. The manuscript demonstrates synthesis for four specific structures but provides no general method to verify that the fixed set remains sufficient when a fifth design is added or to guarantee that performance distinctions are not approximated away.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify early in the manuscript how the 'design concepts' are enumerated and whether the set is claimed to be minimal or extensible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim (abstract) that 'a small set of data layout design concepts' suffices to synthesize 'any design that exists in the literature as well as new ones' is load-bearing but unsupported by a completeness argument or expansion procedure. The manuscript demonstrates synthesis for four specific structures but provides no general method to verify that the fixed set remains sufficient when a fifth design is added or to guarantee that performance distinctions are not approximated away.

    Authors: The manuscript explicitly states that it shows how to construct, evaluate, and expand design continuums. The expansion procedure provides the general method: a new design is decomposed against the existing fundamental concepts; if it cannot be expressed exactly, the minimal additional concepts are incorporated while retaining the parameterized models that capture performance exactly (no approximation). This process can be applied to any fifth design from the literature or newly proposed ones. A formal a-priori completeness proof that one fixed set covers every conceivable data structure is not provided, as that would require an exhaustive formalization of the entire design space, which lies outside the paper's scope. We can revise the abstract and add a clarifying subsection on the expansion procedure to make this methodology more prominent. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: unification presented as modeling construction, not derived prediction or self-referential fit

full rationale

The paper defines a design continuum as a modeling framework that synthesizes B+tree, B-epsilon-tree, LSM-tree and LSH-table from a fixed set of layout concepts. This is an explicit construction and demonstration rather than a derivation that reduces to fitted parameters relabeled as predictions or to self-citations whose validity depends on the current work. No equations, parameter-fitting procedures, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text that would make any claimed prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. The central claim therefore remains an independent modeling assertion whose completeness can be evaluated externally.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; no explicit free parameters, axioms or invented entities are stated. The central claim rests on the unshown premise that a small fixed set of layout concepts suffices to generate all listed structures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5852 in / 1096 out tokens · 18803 ms · 2026-05-24T22:33:32.578044+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For example, the design continuum we presented in this paper allows us to synthesize two new subspaces of hybrid designs, which we depict in Figure 9

    ENHANCING CREA TIVITY Beyond the ability to assume existing designs, a contin- uum can also assist in identifying new data structure designs that were unknown before, but they are naturally derived from the continuum’s design parameters and rules. For example, the design continuum we presented in this paper allows us to synthesize two new subspaces of hyb...

    work page

  2. [2]

    THE PA TH TO SELF-DESIGN Knowing which design is the best for a workload opens the opportunity for systems that can adapt on-the-fly. While adaptivity has been studied in several forms including adapt- ing storage to queries [41, 4, 12, 49, 43, 30, 40, 66], the new opportunity is morphing among what is typically con- sidered as fundamentally different desig...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    We envision a complementary line of future research to construct and improve on design continuums

    NEXT STEPS Research on data structures has focused on identifying the fundamentally best performance trade-offs. We envision a complementary line of future research to construct and improve on design continuums. The overarching goal is to flexibly harness our maturing knowledge of data structures to build more robust, diverse and navigable systems. Future s...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant IIS-1452595

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mark Callaghan has provided the authors with feedback and insights on key-value store design and industry prac- tices repeatedly over the past few years and specifically for this paper. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant IIS-1452595

    work page

  5. [5]

    Agrawal, V

    N. Agrawal, V. Prabhakaran, T. Wobber, J. D. Davis, M. Manasse, and R. Panigrahy. Design Tradeoffs for SSD Performance. ATC, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    J.-S. Ahn, C. Seo, R. Mayuram, R. Yaseen, J.-S. Kim, and S. Maeng. ForestDB: A Fast Key-Value Storage System for Variable-Length String Keys. TC, 65(3):902–915, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    D. V. Aken, A. Pavlo, G. J. Gordon, and B. Zhang. Automatic Database Management System Tuning Through Large-scale Machine Learning. SIGMOD, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Alagiannis, S

    I. Alagiannis, S. Idreos, and A. Ailamaki. H2O: A Hands-free Adaptive Store. SIGMOD, 2014

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    D. J. Aldous. Exchangeability and related topics. pages 1–198, 1985

    work page 1985

  10. [10]

    P. M. Aoki. Generalizing ”Search” in Generalized Search Trees (Extended Abstract). ICDE, 1998

    work page 1998

  11. [11]

    P. M. Aoki. How to Avoid Building DataBlades That Know the Value of Everything and the Cost of Nothing. SSDBM, 1999

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    Accumulo

    Apache. Accumulo. https://accumulo.apache.org/

    work page

  13. [13]

    Foundationdb

    Apple. Foundationdb. https://github.com/apple/foundationdb, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    L. Arge. The Buffer Tree: A Technique for Designing Batched External Data Structures. Algorithmica, 37(1):1–24, 2003

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    T. G. Armstrong, V. Ponnekanti, D. Borthakur, and M. Callaghan. LinkBench: a Database Benchmark Based on the Facebook Social Graph. SIGMOD, 2013

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Arulraj, A

    J. Arulraj, A. Pavlo, and P. Menon. Bridging the Archipelago between Row-Stores and Column-Stores for Hybrid Workloads. SIGMOD, 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Athanassoulis, M

    M. Athanassoulis, M. S. Kester, L. M. Maas, R. Stoica, S. Idreos, A. Ailamaki, and M. Callaghan. Designing Access Methods: The RUM Conjecture. EDBT, 2016

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Bayer and E

    R. Bayer and E. M. McCreight. Organization and Maintenance of Large Ordered Indexes. Proceedings of the ACM SIGFIDET Workshop on Data Description and Access , 1970

    work page 1970

  19. [19]

    Bayer and E

    R. Bayer and E. M. McCreight. Organization and Maintenance of Large Ordered Indices. Acta Informatica, 1(3):173–189, 1972

    work page 1972

  20. [20]

    M. A. Bender, M. Farach-Colton, J. T. Fineman, Y. R. Fogel, B. C. Kuszmaul, and J. Nelson. Cache-Oblivious Streaming B-trees. SPAA, 2007

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    G. S. Brodal and R. Fagerberg. Lower Bounds for External Memory Dictionaries. SODA, 2003

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Y. Bu, V. R. Borkar, J. Jia, M. J. Carey, and T. Condie. Pregelix: Big(ger) Graph Analytics on a Dataflow Engine. PVLDB, 8(2):161–172, 2014

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Z. Cao, S. Chen, F. Li, M. Wang, and X. S. Wang. LogKV: Exploiting Key-Value Stores for Log Processing. CIDR, 2013

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Chandramouli, G

    B. Chandramouli, G. Prasaad, D. Kossmann, J. J. Levandoski, J. Hunter, and M. Barnett. FASTER: A Concurrent Key-Value Store with In-Place Updates. SIGMOD, 2018

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Chang, J

    F. Chang, J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, W. C. Hsieh, D. A. Wallach, M. Burrows, T. Chandra, A. Fikes, and R. E. Gruber. Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data. OSDI, 2006

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    Cohen and N

    D. Cohen and N. Campbell. Automating Relational Operations on Data Structures. IEEE Software, 10(3):53–60, 1993

    work page 1993

  27. [27]

    Dageville, T

    B. Dageville, T. Cruanes, M. Zukowski, V. Antonov, A. Avanes, J. Bock, J. Claybaugh, D. Engovatov, M. Hentschel, J. Huang, A. W. Lee, A. Motivala, A. Q. Munir, S. Pelley, P. Povinec, G. Rahn, S. Triantafyllis, and P. Unterbrunner. The Snowflake Elastic Data Warehouse. SIGMOD, 2016

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Dayan, M

    N. Dayan, M. Athanassoulis, and S. Idreos. Monkey: Optimal Navigable Key-Value Store. SIGMOD, 2017

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Dayan, M

    N. Dayan, M. Athanassoulis, and S. Idreos. Optimal Bloom Filters and Adaptive Merging for LSM-Trees. TODS, (to appear, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Dayan, P

    N. Dayan, P. Bonnet, and S. Idreos. GeckoFTL: Scalable Flash Translation Techniques For Very Large Flash Devices. SIGMOD, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Dayan and S

    N. Dayan and S. Idreos. Dostoevsky: Better Space-Time Trade-Offs for LSM-Tree Based Key-Value Stores via Adaptive Removal of Superfluous Merging. SIGMOD, 2018

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Dayan and S

    N. Dayan and S. Idreos. The log-structured merge-bush & the wacky continuum. In SIGMOD, 2019

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    DeCandia, D

    G. DeCandia, D. Hastorun, M. Jampani, G. Kakulapati, A. Lakshman, A. Pilchin, S. Sivasubramanian, P. Vosshall, and W. Vogels. Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-value Store. SIGOPS Op. Sys. Rev. , 41(6):205–220, 2007

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    Dittrich and A

    J. Dittrich and A. Jindal. Towards a One Size Fits All Database Architecture. CIDR, 2011

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    S. Dong, M. Callaghan, L. Galanis, D. Borthakur, T. Savor, and M. Strum. Optimizing Space Amplification in RocksDB. CIDR, 2017

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Facebook. RocksDB. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb

    work page

  37. [37]

    M. J. Franklin. Caching and Memory Management in Client-Server Database Systems. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1993

    work page 1993

  38. [38]

    Golan-Gueta, E

    G. Golan-Gueta, E. Bortnikov, E. Hillel, and I. Keidar. Scaling Concurrent Log-Structured Data Stores. EuroSys, 2015

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Google. LevelDB. https://github.com/google/leveldb/

    work page

  40. [40]

    Hawkins, A

    P. Hawkins, A. Aiken, K. Fisher, M. C. Rinard, and M. Sagiv. Data Representation Synthesis. PLDI, 2011

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Hawkins, A

    P. Hawkins, A. Aiken, K. Fisher, M. C. Rinard, and M. Sagiv. Concurrent data representation synthesis. PLDI, 2012

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    Online reference

    HBase. Online reference. http://hbase.apache.org/, 2013

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    J. M. Hellerstein, J. F. Naughton, and A. Pfeffer. Generalized Search Trees for Database Systems. VLDB, 1995

    work page 1995

  44. [44]

    Idreos, I

    S. Idreos, I. Alagiannis, R. Johnson, and A. Ailamaki. Here are my Data Files. Here are my Queries. Where are my Results? CIDR, 2011

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    Idreos, M

    S. Idreos, M. L. Kersten, and S. Manegold. Database Cracking. CIDR, 2007

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Idreos, L

    S. Idreos, L. M. Maas, and M. S. Kester. Evolutionary Data Systems. CoRR, abs/1706.0, 2017

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Idreos, S

    S. Idreos, S. Manegold, H. Kuno, and G. Graefe. Merging What’s Cracked, Cracking What’s Merged: Adaptive Indexing in Main-Memory Column-Stores. PVLDB, 4(9):586–597, 2011

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    Idreos, K

    S. Idreos, K. Zoumpatianos, M. Athanassoulis, N. Dayan, B. Hentschel, M. S. Kester, D. Guo, L. M. Maas, W. Qin, A. Wasay, and Y. Sun. The Periodic Table of Data Structures. IEEE DEBULL , 41(3):64–75, 2018

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Idreos, K

    S. Idreos, K. Zoumpatianos, B. Hentschel, M. S. Kester, and D. Guo. The Data Calculator: Data Structure Design and Cost Synthesis from First Principles and Learned Cost Models. SIGMOD, 2018

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    H. V. Jagadish, P. P. S. Narayan, S. Seshadri, S. Sudarshan, and R. Kanneganti. Incremental Organization for Data Recording and Warehousing. VLDB, 1997

    work page 1997

  51. [51]

    Jannen, J

    W. Jannen, J. Yuan, Y. Zhan, A. Akshintala, J. Esmet, Y. Jiao, A. Mittal, P. Pandey, P. Reddy, L. Walsh, M. A. Bender, M. Farach-Colton, R. Johnson, B. C. Kuszmaul, and D. E. Porter. BetrFS: A Right-optimized Write-optimized File System. F AST, 2015

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    Jermaine, E

    C. Jermaine, E. Omiecinski, and W. G. Yee. The Partitioned Exponential File for Database Storage Management. VLDBJ, 16(4):417–437, 2007

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    Kennedy and L

    O. Kennedy and L. Ziarek. Just-In-Time Data Structures. CIDR, 2015

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    M. L. Kersten and L. Sidirourgos. A database system with amnesia. In CIDR, 2017

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Kondylakis, N

    H. Kondylakis, N. Dayan, K. Zoumpatianos, and T. Palpanas. Coconut: A scalable bottom-up approach for building data series indexes. VLDB, 11(6):677–690, 2018

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Kondylakis, N

    H. Kondylakis, N. Dayan, K. Zoumpatianos, and T. Palpanas. Coconut palm: Static and streaming data series exploration now in your palm. In SIGMOD, 2019

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    Kornacker

    M. Kornacker. High-Performance Extensible Indexing. VLDB, 1999

    work page 1999

  58. [58]

    Kornacker, C

    M. Kornacker, C. Mohan, and J. M. Hellerstein. Concurrency and Recovery in Generalized Search Trees. SIGMOD, 1997

    work page 1997

  59. [59]

    Kornacker, M

    M. Kornacker, M. A. Shah, and J. M. Hellerstein. amdb: An Access Method Debugging Tool. SIGMOD, 1998

    work page 1998

  60. [60]

    Kornacker, M

    M. Kornacker, M. A. Shah, and J. M. Hellerstein. Amdb: A Design Tool for Access Methods. IEEE DEBULL , 26(2):3–11, 2003

    work page 2003

  61. [61]

    D. Kossman. Systems Research - Fueling Future Disruptions. In Keynote talk at the Microsoft Research Faculty Summit , Redmond, WA, USA, aug 2018

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Kraska, M

    T. Kraska, M. Alizadeh, A. Beutel, E. Chi, A. Kristo, G. Leclerc, S. Madden, H. Mao, and V. Nathan. Sagedb: A learned database system. In CIDR, 2019

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Kraska, A

    T. Kraska, A. Beutel, E. H. Chi, J. Dean, and N. Polyzotis. The Case for Learned Index Structures. SIGMOD, 2018

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Lakshman and P

    A. Lakshman and P. Malik. Cassandra - A Decentralized Structured Storage System. SIGOPS Op. Sys. Rev. , 44(2):35–40, 2010

    work page 2010

  65. [65]

    V. Leis, A. Kemper, and T. Neumann. The Adaptive Radix Tree: ARTful Indexing for Main-Memory Databases. ICDE, 2013

    work page 2013

  66. [66]

    J. J. Levandoski, D. B. Lomet, and S. Sengupta. The Bw-Tree: A B-tree for New Hardware Platforms. ICDE, 2013

    work page 2013

  67. [67]

    Y. Li, B. He, J. Yang, Q. Luo, K. Yi, and R. J. Yang. Tree Indexing on Solid State Drives. PVLDB, 3(1-2):1195–1206, 2010

    work page 2010

  68. [68]

    H. Lim, D. Han, D. G. Andersen, and M. Kaminsky. MICA: A Holistic Approach to Fast In-Memory Key-Value Storage. NSDI, 2014

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Voldemort

    LinkedIn. Voldemort. http://www.project-voldemort.com

    work page

  70. [70]

    Liu and S

    Z. Liu and S. Idreos. Main Memory Adaptive Denormalization. SIGMOD, 2016

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    Loncaric, E

    C. Loncaric, E. Torlak, and M. D. Ernst. Fast Synthesis of Fast Collections. PLDI, 2016

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    L. Lu, T. S. Pillai, A. C. Arpaci-Dusseau, and R. H. Arpaci-Dusseau. WiscKey: Separating Keys from Values in SSD-conscious Storage. F AST, 2016

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    Manegold, P

    S. Manegold, P. A. Boncz, and M. L. Kersten. Generic Database Cost Models for Hierarchical Memory Systems. VLDB, 2002

    work page 2002

  74. [74]

    Mattson, B

    T. Mattson, B. Sanders, and B. Massingill. Patterns for Parallel Programming. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004

    work page 2004

  75. [75]

    Reference

    Memcached. Reference. http://memcached.org/

    work page

  76. [76]

    Online reference

    MongoDB. Online reference. http://www.mongodb.com/

    work page

  77. [77]

    M. A. Olson, K. Bostic, and M. I. Seltzer. Berkeley DB. ATC, 1999

    work page 1999

  78. [78]

    P. E. O’Neil, E. Cheng, D. Gawlick, and E. J. O’Neil. The log-structured merge-tree (LSM-tree). Acta Informatica, 33(4):351–385, 1996

    work page 1996

  79. [79]

    J. K. Ousterhout, G. T. Hamachi, R. N. Mayo, W. S. Scott, and G. S. Taylor. Magic: A VLSI Layout System. DAC, 1984

    work page 1984

  80. [80]

    Papagiannis, G

    A. Papagiannis, G. Saloustros, P. Gonz´ alez-F´ erez, and A. Bilas. Tucana: Design and Implementation of a Fast and Efficient Scale-up Key-value Store. ATC, 2016

    work page 2016

Showing first 80 references.