> check the literature for various alternatives that are better in specific situations For direct replacements, see Xor(+)-Filters: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08258 and the subsequent evolution into Binary Fuse Filters: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.01174
Binary Fuse Filters: Fast and Smaller Than Xor Filters
Thomas Mueller Graf, Daniel Lemire
2022 · arXiv
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 3
- Readers
- 3
- Months
- 3
From the abstract
Bloom and cuckoo filters provide fast approximate set membership while using little memory. Engineers use them to avoid expensive disk and network accesses. The recently introduced xor filters can be faster and smaller than Bloom and cuckoo filters. The xor filters are within 23% of the theoretical lower bound in storage as opposed to 44% for Bloom filters. Inspired by Dietzfelbinger and Walzer, we build probabilistic filters -- called binary fuse filters -- that are within 13% of the storage lower bound -- without sacrificing query speed. As an additional benefit, the construction of the new binary fuse filters can be more than twice as fast as the construction of xor filters. By slightly sacrificing query speed, we further reduce storage to within 8% of the lower bound. We compare the performance against a wide range of competitive alternatives such as Bloom filters, blocked Bloom filters, vector quotient filters, cuckoo filters, and the recent ribbon filters. Our experiments suggest that binary fuse filters are superior to xor filters.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions
No, it's not the L1. It's the L2/L3/LLC. With a regular Bloom filter (not blocked one), each of the k memory accesses results in a L2/L3/LLC cache miss, if the Bloom filter doesn't fit in the cache. And here, it doesn't. With a blocked Bloom filter, there is still a cache miss, but only one, and not k. So that's 8 times fewer cache misses. But yes, buffering the entries and then sorting them does make sense. That way, each cache line is only accessed once, and prefetch works well. We have used radix sorting for the binary fuse filter https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.01174 . For the blocked Bloom filter I'm not sure if it will help however, due to the added complexity. In my tests, it didn't help. There is the "prefetch" operation but we had mixed results with that (buffering and sorting was faster).
Similarly, there is Binary Fuse Filters (https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.01174) [1] The paper includes comparisons with Ribbon filter [1] Graf, T. M., & Lemire, D. (2022). Binary Fuse Filters: Fast and Smaller Than Xor Filters. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510449
Keep following the thread.
More in DatabasesMore from the same topics.
The Case for Learned Index Structures
Tim Kraska, Alex Beutel, Ed H. Chi +2
Indexes are models: a B-Tree-Index can be seen as a model to map a key to the position of a record within a sorted array, a Hash-Index as a model to map a key to a position of a record within an unsorted array, and a BitMap-Index as a model to indicate if a data record exists or not.
A Critique of the CAP Theorem
Martin Kleppmann
The CAP Theorem is a frequently cited impossibility result in distributed systems, especially among NoSQL distributed databases.
Copy-and-Patch Compilation: A fast compilation algorithm for high-level languages and bytecode
Haoran Xu, Fredrik Kjolstad
Fast compilation is important when compilation occurs at runtime, such as query compilers in modern database systems and WebAssembly virtual machines in modern browsers.
Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels
Luyu Gao, Xueguang Ma, Jimmy Lin +1
While dense retrieval has been shown effective and efficient across tasks and languages, it remains difficult to create effective fully zero-shot dense retrieval systems when no relevance label is available.