Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Eric Knorr
dblp:214/6009 · also Eric R. Knorr
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 4Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
3 papers |
Indexing and storage engines · 100% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
3 papers |
Storage systems · 100% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Indexing and storage engines › membership query
approximate membership query |
1.1 | 2 | 2022 | SNARF: A Learning-Enhanced Range Filter · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2022 Proteus: A Self-Designing Range Filter · SIGMOD Conference 2022 |
Indexing and storage engines › filter data structures
range filter |
1.1 | 2 | 2022 | SNARF: A Learning-Enhanced Range Filter · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2022 Proteus: A Self-Designing Range Filter · SIGMOD Conference 2022 |
Storage systems
file systems |
0.7 | 2 | 2018 | Efficient Directory Mutations in a Full-Path-Indexed File System · ACM Trans. Storage 2018 The Full Path to Full-Path Indexing · FAST 2018 |
Indexing and storage engines
learned index |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | SNARF: A Learning-Enhanced Range Filter · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2022 |
Indexing and storage engines › membership query › approximate membership query
bloom filter |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Partitioned Learned Bloom Filters · ICLR 2021 |
Indexing and storage engines › membership query › approximate membership query › bloom filter
learned bloom filter |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Partitioned Learned Bloom Filters · ICLR 2021 |
Storage systems
indexing |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | The Full Path to Full-Path Indexing · FAST 2018 |
Indexing and storage engines
key-value store |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | SNARF: A Learning-Enhanced Range Filter · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2022 |
Storage systems
key-value storage |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Proteus: A Self-Designing Range Filter · SIGMOD Conference 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sampling · 1.1contextual prefix FPR model · 1.1learned model · 0.6bit array compression · 0.6write-optimized dictionary · 0.3range-rename · 0.3path indexing · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Proteus: A Self-Designing Range FilterabstractWe introduce Proteus, a novel self-designing approximate range filter, which configures itself based on sampled data in order to optimize its false positive rate (FPR) for a given space requirement. Proteus unifies the probabilistic and deterministic design spaces of state-of-the-art range filters to achieve robust performance across a larger variety of use cases. At the core of Proteus lies our Contextual Prefix FPR (CPFPR) model - a formal framework for the FPR of prefix-based filters across their design spaces. We empirically demonstrate the accuracy of our model and Proteus' ability to optimize over both synthetic workloads and real-world datasets. We further evaluate Proteus in RocksDB and show that it is able to improve end-to-end performance by as much as 5.3x over more brittle state-of-the-art methods such as SuRF and Rosetta. Our experiments also indicate that the cost of modeling is not significant compared to the end-to-end performance gains and that Proteus is robust to workload shifts. Eric Knorr, Baptiste Lemaire, Siqiang Luo, Huanchen Zhang, Stratos Idreos, Michael Mitzenmacher |
SIGMOD Conference | 1 |
| 2022 | SNARF: A Learning-Enhanced Range FilterabstractWe present Sparse Numerical Array-Based Range Filters (SNARF), a learned range filter that efficiently supports range queries for numerical data. SNARF creates a model of the data distribution to map the keys into a bit array which is stored in a compressed form. The model along with the compressed bit array which constitutes SNARF are used to answer membership queries. We evaluate SNARF on multiple synthetic and real-world datasets as a stand-alone filter and by integrating it into RocksDB. For range queries, SNARF provides up to 50x better false positive rate than state-of-the-art range filters, such as SuRF and Rosetta, with the same space usage. We also evaluate SNARF in RocksDB as a filter replacement for filtering requests before they access on-disk data structures. For RocksDB, SNARF can improve the execution time of the system up to 10x compared to SuRF and Rosetta for certain read-only workloads. Kapil Vaidya, Tim Kraska, Subarna Chatterjee, Eric Knorr, Michael Mitzenmacher, Stratos Idreos |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 4 |
| 2021 | Partitioned Learned Bloom Filters
Kapil Vaidya, Eric Knorr, Michael Mitzenmacher, Tim Kraska |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2019 | Filesystem Aging: It's more Usage than Fullness
Alexander Conway 0001, Eric Knorr, Yizheng Jiao, Michael A. Bender, William Jannen, Rob Johnson 0001, Donald E. Porter, Martin Farach-Colton |
HotStorage | 2 |
| 2019 | Small Refinements to the DAM Can Have Big Consequences for Data-Structure DesignabstractStorage devices have complex performance profiles, including costs to initiate IOs (e.g., seek times in hard drives), parallelism and bank conflicts (in SSDs), costs to transfer data, and firmware-internal operations. The Disk-Access Machine (DAM) model simplifies reality by assuming that storage devices transfer data in blocks of size B and that all transfers have unit cost. Despite its simplifications, the DAM model is reasonably accurate. In fact, if B is set to the half-bandwidth point, where the latency and bandwidth of the hardware are equal, the DAM approximates the IO cost on any hardware to within a factor of 2. Furthermore, the DAM explains the popularity of B-trees in the 70s and the current popularity of B-trees and log-structured merge trees. But it fails to explain why some B-trees use small nodes, whereas all B-trees use large nodes. In a DAM, all IOs, and hence all nodes, are the same size. In this paper, we show that the affine and PDAM models, which are small refinements of the DAM model, yield a surprisingly large improvement in predictability without sacrificing ease of use. We present benchmarks on a large collection of storage devices showing that the affine and PDAM models give good approximations of the performance characteristics of hard drives and SSDs, respectively. We show that the affine model explains node-size choices in B-trees and B+-trees. Furthermore, the models predict that the B-tree is highly sensitive to variations in the node size whereas B-trees are much less sensitive. These predictions are born out empirically. Finally, we show that in both the affine and PDAM models, it pays to organize data structures to exploit varying IO size. In the affine model, B-trees can be optimized so that all operations are simultaneously optimal, even up to lower order terms. In the PDAM model, B-trees (or B+-trees) can be organized so that both sequential and concurrent workloads are handled efficiently. We conclude that the DAM model is useful as a first cut when designing or analyzing an algorithm or data structure but the affine and PDAM models enable the algorithm designer to optimize parameter choices and fill in design details. Michael A. Bender, Alexander Conway 0001, Martin Farach-Colton, William Jannen, Yizheng Jiao, Rob Johnson 0001, Eric Knorr, Sara McAllister, Nirjhar Mukherjee, Prashant Pandey 0001, Donald E. Porter, Jun Yuan 0006, Yang Zhan 0001 |
SPAA | 7 |
| 2018 | The Full Path to Full-Path Indexing
Yang Zhan 0001, Alexander Conway 0001, Yizheng Jiao, Eric Knorr, Michael A. Bender, Martin Farach-Colton, William Jannen, Rob Johnson 0001, Donald E. Porter, Jun Yuan 0006 |
FAST | 4 |
| 2018 | Efficient Directory Mutations in a Full-Path-Indexed File SystemabstractFull-path indexing can improve I/O efficiency for workloads that operate on data organized using traditional, hierarchical directories, because data is placed on persistent storage in scan order. Prior results indicate, however, that renames in a local file system with full-path indexing are prohibitively expensive. This article shows how to use full-path indexing in a file system to realize fast directory scans, writes, and renames. The article introduces a range-rename mechanism for efficient key-space changes in a write-optimized dictionary. This mechanism is encapsulated in the key-value Application Programming Interface (API) and simplifies the overall file system design. We implemented this mechanism in B ε -trees File System (BetrFS), an in-kernel, local file system for Linux. This new version, BetrFS 0.4, performs recursive greps 1.5x faster and random writes 1.2x faster than BetrFS 0.3, but renames are competitive with indirection-based file systems for a range of sizes. BetrFS 0.4 outperforms BetrFS 0.3, as well as traditional file systems, such as ext4, Extents File System (XFS), and Z File System (ZFS), across a variety of workloads. Yang Zhan 0001, Yizheng Jiao, Donald E. Porter, Alexander Conway 0001, Eric Knorr, Martin Farach-Colton, Michael A. Bender, Jun Yuan 0006, William Jannen, Rob Johnson 0001 |
ACM Trans. Storage | 5 |