Prefix Filter: Practically and Theoretically Better Than Bloom

March 31, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Tomer Even, Guy Even, Adam Morrison arXiv ID 2203.17139 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Cross-listed cs.DB Citations 12 Venue Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Many applications of approximate membership query data structures, or filters, require only an incremental filter that supports insertions but not deletions. However, the design space of incremental filters is missing a "sweet spot" filter that combines space efficiency, fast queries, and fast insertions. Incremental filters, such as the Bloom and blocked Bloom filter, are not space efficient. Dynamic filters (i.e., supporting deletions), such as the cuckoo or vector quotient filter, are space efficient but do not exhibit consistently fast insertions and queries. In this paper, we propose the prefix filter, an incremental filter that addresses the above challenge: (1) its space (in bits) is similar to state-of-the-art dynamic filters; (2) query throughput is high and is comparable to that of the cuckoo filter; and (3) insert throughput is high with overall build times faster than those of the vector quotient filter and cuckoo filter by $1.39\times$-$1.46\times$ and $3.2\times$-$3.5\times$, respectively. We present a rigorous analysis of the prefix filter that holds also for practical set sizes (i.e., $n=2^{25}$). The analysis deals with the probability of failure, false positive rate, and probability that an operation requires accessing more than a single cache line.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted