Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 147 references

Rethinking LSM-tree based Key-Value Stores: A Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This survey maps the 2020–2025 research landscape of LSM-tree key-value stores into five questions and argues compaction remains the central unsolved problem.

desk verdict A useful but uneven update to the LSM-tree survey canon; worth refereeing, but the citation errors and an internal architecture contradiction need to be cleaned up before I'd trust it as a map. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09642 v1 pith:AJZA7W45 submitted 2025-07-13 cs.DB

Yina Lv , Qiao Li , Quanqing Xu , Congming Gao , Chuanhui Yang , Xiaoli Wang , Chun Jason Xue This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DB
keywords LSM-treekey-valuestorescompactionwriteamplificationdistributedstoragemulti-tenancyemerginghardwaresurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper is a survey aiming to give a current, structured map of LSM-tree optimization research. It claims to cover more than 100 papers from 2020 to 2025 and organizes them around five research questions: compaction, point and range queries, emerging storage hardware, the shift from single-node to distributed architecture, and multi-tenant I/O isolation. A reader would care because LSM-trees underpin widely used key-value stores, and the survey's map can help practitioners and researchers locate current trade-offs and open problems, such as compaction-induced write stalls and write amplification. The survey also argues that the biggest open opportunities lie in workload-adaptive, tenant-aware, and hardware-aware designs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the LSM-tree itself: an append-oriented, tiered structure of in-memory MemTables and immutable on-disk sorted string tables (SSTables), maintained by background compaction, where compactions merge and clean data across levels. The survey's organizing mechanism is a five-question taxonomy that partitions the design space—compaction policy and resource allocation, point and range query optimization, adaptation to emerging storage devices, evolution from single-node to distributed architectures, and I/O isolation in multi-tenant settings. Each question is used as a lens to classify over 100 papers into categories such as write throttling, I/O scheduling, auto-tuning, compaction granularity and data layout, filter design, buffer caching, and hardware offload. This taxonomy is what carries the survey's argument that the field is comprehensive yet still has unresolved core problems.

What would settle it

A reader could count the papers in the survey's own table that fall outside 2020–2025, or compare that table against the publication lists of major systems and database venues for 2020–2025 and find a significant line of work, such as an influential compaction or read-path design, entirely absent; either result would settle whether the review is as comprehensive as it claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This survey sets out to establish that the state of LSM-tree based key-value store research from 2020 to 2025 can be coherently organized around five research questions, and that the central unsolved problem is still compaction: its unpredictability, resource contention, and amplification effects. It argues that the field has moved from single-node designs tuned for a few parameters toward distributed, disaggregated, and multi-tenant systems where resource allocation, network traffic, and tenant isolation dominate. It further claims that emerging hardware—NVMe SSDs, ZNS SSDs, persistent memory, and accelerators such as FPGAs, GPUs, and DPUs—creates new opportunities rather than just new constraints. The paper presents this as a comprehensive review that extends earlier surveys, which it characterizes as narrower or less current.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's claim of being comprehensive depends on its informal selection of representative papers, so if the chosen set is not actually representative of 2020–2025 LSM-KVS research, the map of the field would mislead even though each individual description may be accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the map is right, a newcomer can locate any given LSM-KVS optimization technique among the five research questions and the four classic compaction levers: when to trigger compaction, which data to compact, compaction granularity, and data layout.
  • The survey's claim that compaction unpredictability remains unsolved implies that write-stall prevention and latency stability will continue to be active research targets, both through software scheduling and through hardware offloading.
  • On the application side, the paper's discussion indicates that workload-aware and tenant-aware designs, including tuning guided by machine learning or large language models, will grow in importance.
  • The architectural comparison implies that shared-nothing will remain the main LSM-KVS architecture, while shared-storage and disaggregated designs remain open for further exploration, with the paper noting that no LSM-KVS currently uses a shared-storage architecture.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Implicitly, the survey's five-question taxonomy could double as a checklist for evaluating new LSM-KVS proposals, since a paper that does not address at least one of these questions would be hard to position against the field.
  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that future LSM-KVS designs should increasingly be evaluated on tail latency and tenant isolation, not just steady-state throughput, since compaction and multi-tenant conflicts are recurring root causes.
  • A testable extension would be to map each categorized paper's techniques to standard LSM-tree parameters and check whether the optimizations still compose when combined, because the survey describes them individually rather than jointly.
  • The observation that no LSM-KVS uses shared-storage architecture suggests a concrete design opportunity: a shared-storage LSM-KVS that preserves write scalability while leveraging storage pooling, a direction the survey motivates but does not itself develop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a survey of LSM-tree based key-value store (LSM-KVS) research, with a stated focus on representative works from 2020 to 2025. The survey organizes the literature around five research questions: compaction optimization, point and range query performance, adaptation to emerging storage devices, evolution from single-node to distributed architectures, and I/O isolation in multi-tenant environments. It also discusses application-driven designs, compares single-node, shared-nothing, and shared-storage architectures, and outlines future research directions. The main claimed contribution is a comprehensive and current map of the LSM-KVS optimization landscape, covering more than 100 papers.

Significance. If the coverage claim holds, this survey would be a useful entry point for researchers and practitioners seeking a structured overview of recent LSM-tree optimizations, especially in distributed settings, emerging hardware, and multi-tenant systems. The paper's organization by research questions, its summary tables, and its discussion of future directions are valuable features. However, the survey's reliability depends on accurate citation, consistent categorization, and a defensible selection methodology. The concrete errors identified below—particularly the WiscKey/Bourbon misassignment, the contradiction between Sections 2.2 and 5.3, and the unreported original experiment in Section 3.1.1—undermine the trustworthiness of the central comprehensiveness claim and require correction before the paper can serve as an authoritative reference.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1, Persistent memory row] The row for 'Persistent memory' lists 'Wisckey[32] (OSDI’20)', but reference [32] is the Bourbon learned-index paper by Dai et al. (OSDI 2020), not WiscKey. WiscKey is a key-value separation design from FAST 2016 and does not appear in the reference list. This is a factual error in the central taxonomy table: a reader attempting to verify a significant cited work will be directed to the wrong paper. The citation must be corrected, and WiscKey should either be added to the reference list with its correct venue or the entry should be removed.
  2. [Section 5.3 vs. Section 2.2] Section 5.3 states that 'we have not encountered any LSM-KVS that utilizes a shared-storage architecture,' but Section 2.2 describes compute-storage disaggregation as 'a widely adopted solution in modern datacenters' for distributed LSM-KVS, citing references [42], [140], and [146]. Reference [140] (CaaS-LSM) explicitly presents an LSM-KVS for storage-disaggregated infrastructure, which is a form of shared-storage. The two statements are contradictory and leave the reader unable to determine the survey's stance on whether disaggregated/shared storage is a viable LSM-KVS architecture. This inconsistency affects the architectural comparison in Table 2 and the overall coherence of the survey's taxonomy.
  3. [Section 3.1.1, ELMo-Tune experiment] The paper reports an original experiment without sufficient detail: 'We constructed an experiment to evaluate the tuning time cost based on ELMo-Tune, revealing that the tuning process requires approximately one hundred seconds when performed by DeepSeek V3 [6] under db_bench evaluation.' This claim is used to conclude that the method is 'unsuitable for deployment in real-time systems.' No methodology is provided regarding the workload, hardware, number of runs, variance, or how the time was measured. In a survey paper, an unreported original experiment of this kind is not verifiable and should either be removed or substantiated with a complete experimental setup. At minimum, it must be clearly labeled as a preliminary observation and not presented as a definitive result.
  4. [Section 1 and Table 1] The central claim of the survey is that it provides 'a comprehensive review' covering 'more than 100 papers from 2020 to 2025,' but the paper provides no inclusion/exclusion criteria, no search protocol, and no validation of coverage representativeness. The absence of a systematic selection methodology is especially problematic given the citation and categorization errors already present in Table 1; without a defined scope, the reader cannot assess whether the selected works are representative or whether important contributions were omitted. The authors should either add a methodology subsection describing how papers were collected and screened, or they should soften the comprehensiveness claim to match the actual narrative scope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains grammatical issues, such as 'research on LSM-tree optimization has continued to propose' and the phrase 'this survey provides a detailed discussion of the state-of-the-art work on LSM-tree optimizations and gives future research directions.' These should be rephrased for clarity.
  2. [Section 1, Contributions bullet] The bullet claims coverage of 'more than 100 papers from 2020 to 2025,' but Table 1 includes several pre-2020 works (e.g., bLSM 2012, Monkey 2017, TRIAD 2017) and the table footnote says 'Most reviewed works were published between 2020-2025.' The phrasing should be reconciled to avoid overstating the temporal scope.
  3. [Section 3.2.2] The sentence 'Different from regular key-value pairs, the value of the key-value pair in the tombstone is short (commonly one byte)' is imprecise: a tombstone is a deletion marker, not a stored value. The wording should be corrected to describe the tombstone's representation in the log.
  4. [Section 5.3] The phrase 'Here are some possible reasons' is informal for a survey. The discussion of why LSM-KVS avoids shared-storage architectures would be stronger if presented as a reasoned analysis rather than a list of plausible explanations.
  5. [Section 3.2.1] The sentence 'In addition, some work focuses on read performance optimization on secondary index optimization [68, 115, 116]' is redundant and should be simplified, e.g., 'Some works focus on secondary index optimization [68, 115, 116].'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's central claim is descriptive literature coverage, and no load-bearing derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a survey, not a derivation or prediction. Its central claim, stated in Section 1, is that it 'provides a comprehensive review of the research questions and designs of LSM-KVS, and discuss existing solutions (especially those from the past five years, covering more than 100 papers from 2020 to 2025).' The paper contains no equations, no fitted parameters, and no experimentally predicted quantities that could collapse into its inputs by construction. The only self-references are citations to the authors' OceanBase papers ([132], [133]) as examples of LSM-KVS systems that execute intra-level compactions and allocate separate LSM-tree management for multi-tenants. These citations are descriptive uses of primary sources within a literature survey, not a load-bearing argument whose conclusion is presupposed by the citation. The survey does exhibit concrete reliability problems: Table 1 lists 'Wisckey[32] (OSDI'20)' while reference [32] is the Bourbon learned-index paper, and Section 5.3 states 'we have not encountered any LSM-KVS that utilizes a shared-storage architecture' despite Section 2.2 describing compute-storage disaggregation as 'a widely adopted solution in modern datacenters [42, 140, 146]'. These are citation and taxonomy errors that could undermine the comprehensiveness claim, but they are errors of coverage and consistency, not circular reasoning. No step in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by definition, and no prediction is statistically forced by a prior fit. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a survey paper; it introduces no mathematical derivations, free parameters, or invented entities. The central claim is about comprehensiveness of literature coverage, which rests on the authors' selection and reading of cited works.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking LSM-tree based Key-Value Stores: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJZA7W45

@misc{pith2026250709642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking LSM-tree based Key-Value Stores: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJZA7W45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09642}
}
read the original abstract

LSM-tree is a widely adopted data structure in modern key-value store systems that optimizes write performance in write-heavy applications by using append writes to achieve sequential writes. However, the unpredictability of LSM-tree compaction introduces significant challenges, including performance variability during peak workloads and in resource-constrained environments, write amplification caused by data rewriting during compactions, read amplification from multi-level queries, trade-off between read and write performance, as well as efficient space utilization to mitigate space amplification. Prior studies on LSM-tree optimizations have addressed the above challenges; however, in recent years, research on LSM-tree optimization has continued to propose. The goal of this survey is to review LSM-tree optimization, focusing on representative works in the past five years. This survey first studies existing solutions on how to mitigate the performance impact of LSM-tree flush and compaction and how to improve basic key-value operations. In addition, distributed key-value stores serve multi-tenants, ranging from tens of thousands to millions of users with diverse requirements. We then analyze the new challenges and opportunities in these modern architectures and across various application scenarios. Unlike the existing survey papers, this survey provides a detailed discussion of the state-of-the-art work on LSM-tree optimizations and gives future research directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09642 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Architecture of LSM-KVS and Internal Management. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributed LSM-KVS with Compute-Storage Disaggregation Architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LSM-tree Designs under Multi-tenant Isolation vs. Shared-Storage Scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different Key-Value Store Architectures: (a) Single-Node Architecture; (b) Shared-Nothing Architecture; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Yifan Dai, Yien Xu, Aishwarya Ganesan, Ramnatthan Alagappan, Brian Kroth, Andrea Arpaci-Dusseau, and Remzi Arpaci-Dusseau. 2020. From WiscKey to Bourbon: A Learned Index for Log-Structured Merge Trees. In 14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 20) . USENIX Association, 155–171. https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi20/p...

    2020

  2. [42]

    Siying Dong, Shiva Shankar P., Satadru Pan, Anand Ananthabhotla, Dhanabal Ekambaram, Abhinav Sharma, Shobhit Dayal, Nishant Vinaybhai Parikh, Yanqin Jin, Albert Kim, Sushil Patil, Jay Zhuang, Sam Dunster, Akanksha Mahajan, Anirudh Chelluri, Chaitanya Datye, Lucas Vasconcelos Santana, Nitin Garg, and Omkar Gawde. 2023. Disaggregating RocksDB: A Production ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3589772 2023

  3. [140]

    Qiaolin Yu, Chang Guo, Jay Zhuang, Viraj Thakkar, Jianguo Wang, and Zhichao Cao. 2024. CaaS-LSM: Compaction- as-a-Service for LSM-based Key-Value Stores in Storage Disaggregated Infrastructure. Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) 2, 3, Article 124 (May 2024), 28 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3654927

    work page doi:10.1145/3654927 2024

  4. [146]

    Weidong Zhang, Erci Xu, Qiuping Wang, Xiaolu Zhang, Yuesheng Gu, Zhenwei Lu, Tao Ouyang, Guanqun Dai, Wenwen Peng, Zhe Xu, Shuo Zhang, Dong Wu, Yilei Peng, Tianyun Wang, Haoran Zhang, Jiasheng Wang, Wenyuan Yan, Yuanyuan Dong, Wenhui Yao, Zhongjie Wu, Lingjun Zhu, Chao Shi, Yinhu Wang, Rong Liu, Junping Wu, Jiaji Zhu, and Jiesheng Wu. 2024. What’s the Sto...

    2024

  5. [6]

    [n. d.]. DeepSeek. https://platform.deepseek.com/api_keys

  6. [1]

    [n. d.]. Amazon Aurora. https://aws.amazon.com/cn/blogs/aws/highly-scalable-mysql-compat-rds-db-engine/

  7. [2]

    [n. d.]. Amazon S3. https://aws.amazon.com/cn/s3/

  8. [3]

    [n. d.]. Apache Cassandra. https://cassandra.apache.org/

Show all 147 references
  1. [4]

    [n. d.]. Apache Doris. https://doris.apache.org/

  2. [5]

    [n. d.]. Apache HBase. https://hbase.apache.org/

  3. [7]

    [n. d.]. Facebook RocksDB. https://rocksdb.org/

  4. [8]

    [n. d.]. Google LevelDB. https://github.com/google/leveldb

  5. [9]

    [n. d.]. Huawei GaussDB. https://doc.hcs.huawei.com/db/en-us/index.html

  6. [10]

    [n. d.]. Microsoft Azure HyperScale . https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql/database/hyperscale- architecture?view=azuresql

  7. [11]

    [n. d.]. PingCAP TiKV. https://tikv.org

  8. [12]

    [n. d.]. YCSB. https://github.com/brianfrankcooper/YCSB

  9. [13]

    Muhammad Yousuf Ahmad and Bettina Kemme. 2015. Compaction Management in Distributed Key-Value Datastores. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 8, 8 (2015), 850–861

    2015

  10. [14]

    Muthukaruppan Annamalai, Kaushik Ravichandran, Harish Srinivas, Igor Zinkovsky, Luning Pan, Tony Savor, David Nagle, and Michael Stumm. 2018. Sharding the Shards: Managing Datastore Locality at Scale with Akkio. In 13th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implemen...

    2018

  11. [15]

    Oana Balmau, Diego Didona, Rachid Guerraoui, Willy Zwaenepoel, Huapeng Yuan, Aashray Arora, Karan Gupta, and Pavan Konka. 2017. TRIAD: Creating Synergies Between Memory, Disk and Log in Log Structured Key-Value Stores. In 2017 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 17)...

    2017

  12. [16]

    Oana Balmau, Florin Dinu, Willy Zwaenepoel, Karan Gupta, Ravishankar Chandhiramoorthi, and Diego Didona. 2019. SILK: Preventing Latency Spikes in Log-Structured Merge Key-Value Stores. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC). USENIX Association, Renton, WA, 753–766....

    2019

  13. [17]

    Oana Balmau, Florin Dinu, Willy Zwaenepoel, Karan Gupta, Ravishankar Chandhiramoorthi, and Diego Didona. 2020. SILK+ Preventing Latency Spikes in Log-Structured Merge Key-Value Stores Running Heterogeneous Workloads. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS) 36, 4, Article 1...

    2020 doi

  14. [18]

    Laurent Bindschaedler, Ashvin Goel, and Willy Zwaenepoel. 2020. Hailstorm: Disaggregated Compute and Storage for Distributed LSM-based Databases. In ASPLOS ’20: Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Lausanne, Switzerland, March 16-20, 2020 , Ja...

    2020

  15. [19]

    Breslow and Nuwan S

    Alex D. Breslow and Nuwan S. Jayasena. 2018. Morton filters: faster, space-efficient cuckoo filters via biasing, compression, and decoupled logical sparsity. Proc. VLDB Endow. 11, 9 (May 2018), 1041–1055

    2018

  16. [20]

    Miao Cai, Xuzhen Jiang, Junru Shen, and Baoliu Ye. 2024. SplitDB: Closing the Performance Gap for LSM-Tree-Based Key-Value Stores. IEEE Trans. Computers 73, 1 (2024), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2023.3326982

    2024

  17. [21]

    Wei Cao, Xiaojie Feng, Boyuan Liang, Tianyu Zhang, Yusong Gao, Yunyang Zhang, and Feifei Li. 2021. LogStore: A Cloud-Native and Multi-Tenant Log Database. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) (Virtual Event, China) (SIGMOD ’21). As...

    2021

  18. [22]

    Zhichao Cao, Huibing Dong, Yixun Wei, Shiyong Liu, and David H. C. Du. 2022. IS-HBase: An In-Storage Computing Optimized HBase with I/O Offloading and Self-Adaptive Caching in Compute-Storage Disaggregated Infrastructure. ACM Transactions on Storage (ToS) 18, 2, Article 15 (Ap...

    2022 doi

  19. [23]

    Zhichao Cao, Siying Dong, Sagar Vemuri, and David H.C. Du. 2020. Characterizing, Modeling, and Benchmarking RocksDB Key-Value Workloads at Facebook. In18th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 20) . USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 209–223. https://www....

    2020

  20. [24]

    Helen H. W. Chan, Yongkun Li, Patrick P. C. Lee, and Yinlong Xu. 2018. HashKV: Enabling Efficient Updates in KV Storage via Hashing. In 2018 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 18) . USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 1007–1019. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc18/...

    2018

  21. [25]

    Hsieh, Deborah A

    Fay Chang, Jeffrey Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Wilson C. Hsieh, Deborah A. Wallach, Mike Burrows, Tushar Chandra, Andrew Fikes, and Robert E. Gruber. 2008. Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS)26, 2, Article 4 (June ...

    2008

  22. [26]

    Hao Chen, Chaoyi Ruan, Cheng Li, Xiaosong Ma, and Yinlong Xu. 2021. SpanDB: A Fast, Cost-Effective LSM-tree Based KV Store on Hybrid Storage. In 19th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 21) . USENIX Association, 17–32. https://www.usenix.org/conference/fas...

    2021

  23. [28]

    Gunhee Choi, Kwanghee Lee, Myunghoon Oh, Jongmoo Choi, Jhuyeong Jhin, and Yongseok Oh. 2020. A New LSM-style Garbage Collection Scheme for ZNS SSDs. In 12th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage 20). USENIX Association. https://www.usenix.org/co...

    2020

  24. [29]

    Alex Conway, Martin Farach-Colton, and Rob Johnson. 2023. SplinterDB and Maplets: Improving the Tradeoffs in Key-Value Store Compaction Policy. Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) 1, 1 (2023), 46:1–46:27. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2023 doi

  25. [30]

    Corbett, Jeffrey Dean, Michael Epstein, Andrew Fikes, Christopher Frost, J

    James C. Corbett, Jeffrey Dean, Michael Epstein, Andrew Fikes, Christopher Frost, J. J. Furman, Sanjay Ghemawat, Andrey Gubarev, Christopher Heiser, Peter Hochschild, Wilson C. Hsieh, Sebastian Kanthak, Eugene Kogan, Hongyi Li, Alexander Lloyd, Sergey Melnik, David Mwaura, Dav...

    2012

  26. [31]

    Lee, Ashish Motivala, Abdul Q

    Benoit Dageville, Thierry Cruanes, Marcin Zukowski, Vadim Antonov, Artin Avanes, Jon Bock, Jonathan Claybaugh, Daniel Engovatov, Martin Hentschel, Jiansheng Huang, Allison W. Lee, Ashish Motivala, Abdul Q. Munir, Steven Pelley, Peter Povinec, Greg Rahn, Spyridon Triantafyllis,...

    2016

  27. [33]

    Niv Dayan, Manos Athanassoulis, and Stratos Idreos. 2017. Monkey: Optimal Navigable Key-Value Store. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) (Chicago, Illinois, USA) (SIGMOD ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    2017

  28. [35]

    Niv Dayan and Moshe Twitto. 2021. Chucky: A Succinct Cuckoo Filter for LSM-Tree. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) . 365–378

    2021

  29. [36]

    Niv Dayan, Tamar Weiss, Shmuel Dashevsky, Michael Pan, Edward Bortnikov, and Moshe Twitto. 2022. Spooky: granulating LSM-tree compactions correctly. Proc. VLDB Endow. 15, 11 (July 2022), 3071–3084. https://doi.org/10. 14778/3551793.3551853

    2022

  30. [37]

    Giuseppe DeCandia, Deniz Hastorun, Madan Jampani, Gunavardhan Kakulapati, Avinash Lakshman, Alex Pilchin, Swaminathan Sivasubramanian, Peter Vosshall, and Werner Vogels. 2007. Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-Value Store. In Proceedings of Twenty-First ACM SIGOPS Symposiu...

    2007

  31. [38]

    Dharamjeet, Yi-Shen Chen, Tseng-Yi Chen, Yuan-Hung Kuan, and Yuan-Hao Chang. 2022. LLSM: A Lifetime-Aware Wear-Leveling for LSM-Tree on NAND Flash Memory. IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 41, 11 (2022), 3946–3956. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2022.3197542

    2022

  32. [39]

    Chen Ding, Ting Yao, Hong Jiang, Qiu Cui, Liu Tang, Yiwen Zhang, Jiguang Wan, and Zhihu Tan. 2022. TriangleKV: Reducing Write Stalls and Write Amplification in LSM-Tree Based KV Stores With Triangle Container in NVM. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 33, 12...

    2022

  33. [40]

    Chen Ding, Jian Zhou, Kai Lu, Sicen Li, Yiqin Xiong, Jiguang Wan, and Ling Zhan. 2024. D2Comp: Efficient Offload of LSM-tree Compaction with Data Processing Units on Disaggregated Storage. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO) 21, 3 (2024), 46:1–46:22. ...

    2024 doi

  34. [41]

    Siying Dong, Andrew Kryczka, Yanqin Jin, and Michael Stumm. 2021. Evolution of Development Priorities in Key-value Stores Serving Large-scale Applications: The RocksDB Experience. In 19th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies, FAST 2021, February 23-25, 2021, Marc...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Carl Duffy, Jaehoon Shim, Sang-Hoon Kim, and Jin-Soo Kim. 2023. Dotori: A Key-Value SSD Based KV Store. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16, 6 (Feb. 2023), 1560–1572. https://doi.org/10.14778/3583140.3583167

    2023

  36. [44]

    Andersen, Michael Kaminsky, and Michael D

    Bin Fan, Dave G. Andersen, Michael Kaminsky, and Michael D. Mitzenmacher. 2014. Cuckoo Filter: Practically Better Than Bloom. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International on Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT) (Sydney, Australia) (CoNEXT ’14...

    2014

  37. [45]

    Yi Fan, Yajuan Du, and Sam H. Noh. 2025. RemapCom: Optimizing Compaction Performance of LSM Trees via Data Block Remapping in SSDs. In Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference, DATE 2025, Lyon, France, March 31 - April 2, 2025. IEEE, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.23919/DATE646...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Shukai Han, Dejun Jiang, and Jin Xiong. 2020. SplitKV: Splitting IO Paths for Different Sized Key-Value Items with Advanced Storage Devices. In12th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage 20). USENIX Association. https://www.usenix.org/conference/...

    2020

  39. [47]

    Kewen He, Yujie An, Yijing Luo, Xiaoguang Liu, and Gang Wang. 2023. FlatLSM: Write-Optimized LSM-Tree for PM-Based KV Stores. ACM Transactions on Storage (ToS) 19, 2 (2023), 19:1–19:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579855

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Dong Huang, Dan Feng, Qiankun Liu, Bo Ding, Wei Zhao, Xueliang Wei, and Wei Tong. 2023. SplitZNS: Towards an Efficient LSM-Tree on Zoned Namespace SSDs. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO) 20, 3 (2023), 45:1–45:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3608476

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Gui Huang, Xuntao Cheng, Jianying Wang, Yujie Wang, Dengcheng He, Tieying Zhang, Feifei Li, Sheng Wang, Wei Cao, and Qiang Li. 2019. X-Engine: An Optimized Storage Engine for Large-scale E-commerce Transaction Processing. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on ...

    2019

  42. [50]

    Haoyu Huang and Shahram Ghandeharizadeh. 2021. Nova-LSM: A Distributed, Component-based LSM-tree Key- value Store. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) . 749–763. https: , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. 3...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Kecheng Huang, Zhiping Jia, Zhaoyan Shen, Zili Shao, and Feng Chen. 2021. Less is More: De-amplifying I/Os for Key-value Stores with a Log-assisted LSM-tree. In 37th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2021, Chania, Greece, April 19-22, 2021 . IEEE, 612–623...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Chaudhari, Evimaria Terzi, and Manos Athanassoulis

    Andy Huynh, Harshal A. Chaudhari, Evimaria Terzi, and Manos Athanassoulis. 2022. Endure: a robust tuning paradigm for LSM trees under workload uncertainty. Proc. VLDB Endow. 15, 8 (April 2022), 1605–1618. https: //doi.org/10.14778/3529337.3529345

    2022

  45. [53]

    Chaudhari, Evimaria Terzi, and Manos Athanassoulis

    Andy Huynh, Harshal A. Chaudhari, Evimaria Terzi, and Manos Athanassoulis. 2024. Towards flexibility and robustness of LSM trees. The VLDB Journal 33, 4 (Jan. 2024), 1105–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-023-00826-9

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Stratos Idreos and Mark Callaghan. 2020. Key-Value Storage Engines. InProceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) . 2667–2672

    2020

  47. [55]

    Junsu Im, Jinwook Bae, Chanwoo Chung, Arvind, and Sungjin Lee. 2020. PinK: High-speed In-storage Key-value Store with Bounded Tails. In 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 20) . USENIX Association, 173–187. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc20/presentation/im

    2020

  48. [56]

    Jaliminche, Chandranil Nil Chakraborttii, Changho Choi, and Heiner Litz

    Lokesh N. Jaliminche, Chandranil Nil Chakraborttii, Changho Choi, and Heiner Litz. 2023. Enabling Multi-tenancy on SSDs with Accurate IO Interference Modeling. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, SoCC 2023, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 30 October 2023 - 1 Nove...

    2023

  49. [58]

    Jeeyoon Jung and Dongkun Shin. 2022. Lifetime-leveling LSM-tree compaction for ZNS SSD. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage) . 100–105

    2022

  50. [59]

    Sudarsun Kannan, Nitish Bhat, Ada Gavrilovska, Andrea Arpaci-Dusseau, and Remzi Arpaci-Dusseau. 2018. Re- designing LSMs for Nonvolatile Memory with NoveLSM. In 2018 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 18). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 993–1005. https://www.useni...

    2018

  51. [60]

    Hyun Kim, Minu Chung, HyunGon Moon, and Sam H

    Igjae Kim, J. Hyun Kim, Minu Chung, HyunGon Moon, and Sam H. Noh. 2022. A Log-Structured Merge Tree-aware Message Authentication Scheme for Persistent Key-Value Stores. In 20th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 22). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 3...

    2022

  52. [61]

    Jeeseob Kim, Honghyeon Yoo, Seungjae Lee, Hongsu Byun, and Sungyong Park. 2024. Coordinating Compaction Between LSM-Tree Based Key-Value Stores for Edge Federation. In IEEE 17th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1109/CLOUD62652.2024.00054

    2024

  53. [62]

    Miryeong Kwon, Seungjun Lee, Hyunkyu Choi, Jooyoung Hwang, and Myoungsoo Jung. 2022. Vigil-KV: Hardware- Software Co-Design to Integrate Strong Latency Determinism into Log-Structured Merge Key-Value Stores. In 2022 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 22) . USENIX A...

    2022

  54. [63]

    Chang-Gyu Lee, Hyeongu Kang, Donggyu Park, Sungyong Park, Youngjae Kim, Jungki Noh, Woosuk Chung, and Kyoung Park. 2019. iLSM-SSD: An Intelligent LSM-Tree Based Key-Value SSD for Data Analytics. In 2019 IEEE 27th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of...

    2019

  55. [64]

    Hee-Rock Lee, Chang-Gyu Lee, Seungjin Lee, and Youngjae Kim. 2022. Compaction-aware zone allocation for LSM based key-value store on ZNS SSDs. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage) (Virtual Event) (’22). 93–99. https://d...

    2022

  56. [65]

    Jongsung Lee, Donguk Kim, and Jae W. Lee. 2023. WALTZ: Leveraging Zone Append to Tighten the Tail Latency of LSM Tree on ZNS SSD. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16, 11 (July 2023), 2884–2896. https://doi.org/10.14778/3611479.3611495

    2023

  57. [66]

    Cheng Li, Hao Chen, Chaoyi Ruan, Xiaosong Ma, and Yinlong Xu. 2021. Leveraging NVMe SSDs for Building a Fast, Cost-effective, LSM-tree-based KV Store. ACM Transactions on Storage (ToS) 17, 4 (2021), 27:1–27:29. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3480963

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    Feifei Li. 2019. Cloud-native database systems at Alibaba: opportunities and challenges. Proc. VLDB Endow. 12, 12 (Aug. 2019), 2263–2272

    2019

  59. [68]

    Fei Li, Youyou Lu, Zhe Yang, and Jiwu Shu. 2020. SineKV: Decoupled Secondary Indexing for LSM-based Key- Value Stores. In 2020 IEEE 40th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) . 1112–1122. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCS47774.2020.00071

    2020

  60. [70]

    Pengfei Li, Yu Hua, Pengfei Zuo, Zhangyu Chen, and Jiajie Sheng. 2023. ROLEX: A Scalable RDMA-oriented Learned Key-Value Store for Disaggregated Memory Systems. In21st USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 23). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 99–114. ht...

    2023

  61. [71]

    Yongkun Li, Zhen Liu, Patrick P. C. Lee, Jiayu Wu, Yinlong Xu, Yi Wu, Liu Tang, Qi Liu, and Qiu Cui. 2021. Differentiated Key-Value Storage Management for Balanced I/O Performance. In 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 21). USENIX Association, 673–687. https:/...

    2021

  62. [72]

    Yongkun Li, Chengjin Tian, Fan Guo, Cheng Li, and Yinlong Xu. 2019. ElasticBF: elastic bloom filter with hotness awareness for boosting read performance in large key-value stores. In Proceedings of the 2019 USENIX Conference on Usenix Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC) (...

    2019

  63. [73]

    Junkai Liang and Yunpeng Chai. 2021. CruiseDB: An LSM-Tree Key-Value Store with Both Better Tail Throughput and Tail Latency. In IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . 1032–1043

    2021

  64. [74]

    Yuhong Liang, Tsun-Yu Yang, and Ming-Chang Yang. 2021. KVIMR: Key-Value Store Aware Data Management Middleware for Interlaced Magnetic Recording Based Hard Disk Drive. In 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 21). USENIX Association, 657–671. https://www.usenix.o...

    2021

  65. [75]

    Junfeng Liu, Fan Wang, Dingheng Mo, and Siqiang Luo. 2024. Structural Designs Meet Optimality: Exploring Optimized LSM-tree Structures in a Colossal Configuration Space. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 2, 3, Article 175 (May 2024), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654978

    2024 doi

  66. [76]

    Renping Liu, Junhua Chen, Peng Chen, Linbo Long, Anping Xiong, and Duo Liu. 2024. Hi-ZNS: High Space Efficiency and Zero-Copy LSM-Tree Based Stores on ZNS SSDs. In Proceedings of the 53rd International Conference on Parallel Processing, ICPP 2024, Gotland, Sweden, August 12-15...

    2024

  67. [78]

    Linbo Long, Shuiyong He, Jingcheng Shen, Renping Liu, Zhenhua Tan, Congming Gao, Duo Liu, Kan Zhong, and Yi Jiang. 2024. WA-Zone: Wear-Aware Zone Management Optimization for LSM-Tree on ZNS SSDs.ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO) 21, 1 (2024), 16:1–1...

    2024 doi

  68. [79]

    Chen Luo and Michael J. Carey. 2019. On performance stability in LSM-based storage systems. In Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 13. 449–462

    2019

  69. [80]

    Chen Luo and Michael J. Carey. 2020. LSM-based storage techniques: a survey. The VLDB Journal 29, 1 (2020), 393–418

    2020

  70. [82]

    Donghyun Min, Kihyun Kim, Chaewon Moon, Awais Khan, Seungjin Lee, Changhwan Yun, Woosuk Chung, and Youngjae Kim. 2023. A Multi-tenant Key-value SSD with Secondary Index for Search Query Processing and Analysis. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. (TECS) 22, 4, Article 65 (July 202...

    2023 doi

  71. [83]

    Donghyun Min and Youngjae Kim. 2021. Isolating namespace and performance in key-value SSDs for multi-tenant environments. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage) . 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465332.3470883

    2021

  72. [84]

    Supriya Mishra. 2024. A survey of LSM-Tree based Indexes, Data Systems and KV-stores. In IEEE International Students’ Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Science (SCEECS) . 1–6

    2024

  73. [85]

    Dingheng Mo, Fanchao Chen, Siqiang Luo, and Caihua Shan. 2023. Learning to Optimize LSM-trees: Towards A Reinforcement Learning based Key-Value Store for Dynamic Workloads.Proc. ACM Manag. Data 1, 3, Article 213 (Nov. 2023), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3617333

    2023 doi

  74. [86]

    Patrick O’Neil, Edward Cheng, Dieter Gawlick, and Elizabeth O’Neil. 1996. The log-structured merge-tree (LSM-tree). Acta Inf. 33, 4 (June 1996), 351–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002360050048

    1996 doi

  75. [87]

    Fengfeng Pan, Yinliang Yue, and Jin Xiong. 2017. dCompaction: Speeding up Compaction of the LSM-Tree via Delayed Compaction. Journal of Computer Science and Technology (JCST) 32, 1 (2017), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11390- 017-1704-4

    2017 doi

  76. [88]

    Anastasios Papagiannis, Giorgos Saloustros, Giorgos Xanthakis, Giorgos Kalaentzis, Pilar Gonzalez-Ferez, and Angelos Bilas. 2021. Kreon: An Efficient Memory-Mapped Key-Value Store for Flash Storage. ACM Transactions on Storage (ToS) 17, 1, Article 7 (Jan. 2021), 32 pages. http...

    2021 doi

  77. [89]

    Yifan Qiao, Xubin Chen, Ning Zheng, Jiangpeng Li, Yang Liu, and Tong Zhang. 2022. Closing the B+-tree vs. LSM-tree Write Amplification Gap on Modern Storage Hardware with Built-in Transparent Compression. In 20th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies, FAST 2022, S...

    2022

  78. [90]

    Freedman

    Ashwini Raina, Jianan Lu, Asaf Cidon, and Michael J. Freedman. 2023. Efficient Compactions between Storage Tiers with PrismDB. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) . 179–193

    2023

  79. [91]

    Pandian Raju, Rohan Kadekodi, Vijay Chidambaram, and Ittai Abraham. 2017. PebblesDB: Building Key-Value Stores using Fragmented Log-Structured Merge Trees. In Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (Shanghai, China) (SOSP ’17). Association for Comput...

    2017

  80. [92]

    Kai Ren, Qing Zheng, Joy Arulraj, and Garth Gibson. 2017. SlimDB: a space-efficient key-value storage engine for semi-sorted data. Proc. VLDB Endow. 10, 13 (Sept. 2017), 2037–2048. https://doi.org/10.14778/3151106.3151108

    2017

  81. [93]

    Yanjing Ren, Yuanming Ren, Xiaolu Li, Yuchong Hu, Jingwei Li, and Patrick P. C. Lee. 2024. ELECT: Enabling Erasure Coding Tiering for LSM-tree-based Storage. In 22nd USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies, FAST 2024, Santa Clara, CA, USA, February 27-29, 2024 , Xia...

    2024

  82. [94]

    Subhadeep Sarkar, Tarikul Islam Papon, Dimitris Staratzis, and Manos Athanassoulis. 2020. Lethe: A Tunable Delete-Aware LSM Engine. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGMOD ’20). Association for C...

    2020

  83. [95]

    Subhadeep Sarkar, Dimitris Staratzis, Ziehen Zhu, and Manos Athanassoulis. 2021. Constructing and analyzing the LSM compaction design space. Proc. VLDB Endow. 14, 11 (July 2021), 2216–2229. https://doi.org/10.14778/3476249.3476274

    2021

  84. [96]

    Hemant Saxena, Lukasz Golab, Stratos Idreos, and Ihab F. Ilyas. 2023. Real-Time LSM-Trees for HTAP Workloads. In 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . 1208–1220. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE55515. 2023.00097

    2023

  85. [97]

    Russell Sears and Raghu Ramakrishnan. 2012. bLSM: a general purpose log structured merge tree. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) . 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2213836.2213862

    2012

  86. [98]

    Pradeep Shetty, Richard Spillane, Ravikant Malpani, Binesh Andrews, Justin Seyster, and Erez Zadok. 2013. Building workload-independent storage with VT-trees. In Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST) (San Jose, CA) (FAST’13). USENIX ...

    2013

  87. [99]

    Yongju Song, Wook-Hee Kim, Sumit Kumar Monga, Changwoo Min, and Young Ik Eom. 2023. Prism: Optimizing Key-Value Store for Modern Heterogeneous Storage Devices. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operat...

    2023

  88. [100]

    Hui Sun, Bendong Lou, Chao Zhao, Deyan Kong, Chaowei Zhang, Jianzhong Huang, Yinliang Yue, and Xiao Qin

  89. [101]

    Hui Sun, Jinfeng Xu, Xiangxiang Jiang, Guanzhong Chen, Yinliang Yue, and Xiao Qin. 2024. gLSM: Using GPGPU to Accelerate Compactions in LSM-tree-based Key-value Stores. ACM Transactions on Storage (ToS) 20, 1, Article 5 (Jan. 2024), 41 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3633782

    2024 doi

  90. [102]

    Xuan Sun, Jinghuan Yu, Zimeng Zhou, and Chun Jason Xue. 2020. FPGA-based Compaction Engine for Accelerating LSM-tree Key-Value Stores. In 2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . 1261–1272. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE48307.2020.00113

    2020

  91. [103]

    Mark Sutherland, Babak Falsafi, and Alexandros Daglis. 2023. Cooperative Concurrency Control for Write-Intensive Key-Value Workloads. InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), Volum...

    2023

  92. [104]

    Rebecca Taft, Irfan Sharif, Andrei Matei, Nathan VanBenschoten, Jordan Lewis, Tobias Grieger, Kai Niemi, Andy Woods, Anne Birzin, Raphael Poss, Paul Bardea, Amruta Ranade, Ben Darnell, Bram Gruneir, ustin Jaffray, Lucy Zhang, and Peter Mattis. 2020. CockroachDB: The Resilient ...

    2020

  93. [106]

    Dejun Teng, Lei Guo, Rubao Lee, Feng Chen, Siyuan Ma, Yanfeng Zhang, and Xiaodong Zhang. 2017. LSbM-tree: Re-Enabling Buffer Caching in Data Management for Mixed Reads and Writes. In 37th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS 2017, Atlanta, GA, ...

    2017 doi

  94. [107]

    Viraj Thakkar, Qi Lin, Kenanya Keandra Adriel Prasetyo, Raden Haryosatyo Wisjnunandono, Achmad Imam Kisti- jantoro, Reza Fuad Rachmadi, and Zhichao Cao. 2025. ELMo-Tune-V2: LLM-Assisted Full-Cycle Auto-Tuning to Optimize LSM-Based Key-Value Stores. arXiv:2502.17606 [cs.DB] htt...

    2025 arXiv

  95. [109]

    Shin-Yeh Tsai, Yizhou Shan, and Yiying Zhang. 2020. Disaggregating Persistent Memory and Controlling Them Remotely: An Exploration of Passive Disaggregated Key-Value Stores. In2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 20). USENIX Association, 33–48. https://www.useni...

    2020

  96. [110]

    Sophianos Vasileios. 2024. A Critical Survey on Log-Structured Merge Trees

    2024

  97. [111]

    Tobias Vinçon, Sergej Hardock, Christian Riegger, Julian Oppermann, Andreas Koch, and Ilia Petrov. 2018. NoFTL-KV: TacklingWrite-Amplification on KV-Stores with Native Storage Management. InInternational Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT). 457–460. https://doi....

    2018 doi

  98. [112]

    Hengrui Wang, Te Guo, Junzhao Yang, and Huanchen Zhang. 2024. GRF: A Global Range Filter for LSM-Trees with Shape Encoding. Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) 2, 3 (2024), 141. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654944

    2024 doi

  99. [113]

    Hengrui Wang, Jiansheng Qiu, Fangzhou Yuan, and Huanchen Zhang. 2025. Rethinking The Compaction Policies in LSM-trees. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 3, 3, Article 207 (June 2025), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3725344

    2025 doi

  100. [114]

    Jing Wang, Youyou Lu, Qing Wang, Minhui Xie, Keji Huang, and Jiwu Shu. 2022. Pacman: An Efficient Compaction Approach for Log-Structured Key-Value Store on Persistent Memory. In 2022 USENIX Annual Technical Confer- ence (USENIX ATC 22) . USENIX Association, Carlsbad, CA, 773–7...

    2022

  101. [115]

    Jing Wang, Youyou Lu, Qing Wang, Yuhao Zhang, and Jiwu Shu. 2023. Revisiting Secondary Indexing in LSM-based Storage Systems with Persistent Memory. In 2023 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 23) . USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 817–832. https://www.usenix.org/con...

    2023

  102. [116]

    Jing Wang, Youyou Lu, Qing Wang, Yuhao Zhang, and Jiwu Shu. 2024. Perseid: A Secondary Indexing Mechanism for LSM-Based Storage Systems. ACM Transactions on Storage (ToS) 20, 2, Article 9 (Feb. 2024), 28 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3633285

    2024 doi

  103. [117]

    Peng Wang, Guangyu Sun, Song Jiang, Jian Ouyang, Shiding Lin, Chen Zhang, and Jason Cong. 2014. An efficient design and implementation of LSM-tree based key-value store on open-channel SSD. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys) (Amsterda...

    2014

  104. [118]

    Xiaoliang Wang, Peiquan Jin, Bei Hua, Hai Long, and Wei Huang. 2022. Reducing Write Amplification of LSM-Tree with Block-Grained Compaction. In 38th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2022, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 9-12, 2022 . IEEE, 3119–3131. https://...

    2022

  105. [119]

    Xiaoliang Wang, Jianchuan Li, Peiquan Jin, Kuankuan Guo, Yuanjin Lin, and Ming Zhao. 2021. Supporting Elastic Compaction of LSM-tree with a FaaS Cluster. In IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing, CLUSTER 2021, Portland, OR, USA, September 7-10, 2021 . IEEE, 819–82...

    2021

  106. [121]

    Zhiqi Wang and Zili Shao. 2023. MirrorKV: An Efficient Key-Value Store on Hybrid Cloud Storage with Balanced Performance of Compaction and Querying. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), Vol. 1. 1–27

    2023

  107. [122]

    Zhenghao Wang, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, and Xuan Zhou. 2024. BushStore: Efficient B+Tree Group Indexing for LSM-Tree in Non-Volatile Memory. In40th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2024, Utrecht, The Netherlands, May 13-16, 2024 . IEEE, 4127–4139. https://do...

    2024

  108. [123]

    Fenggang Wu, Ming-Hong Yang, Baoquan Zhang, and David H. C. Du. 2020. AC-Key: Adaptive Caching for LSM-based Key-Value Stores. In Proceedings of the 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2020, July 15-17, 2020 , Ada Gavrilovska and Erez Zadok (Eds.). USENIX Assoc...

    2020

  109. [124]

    Xingbo Wu, Yuehai Xu, Zili Shao, and Song Jiang. 2015. LSM-trie: an LSM-tree-based ultra-large key-value store for small data. In Proceedings of the 2015 USENIX Conference on Usenix Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC) (Santa Clara, CA) (USENIX ATC ’15). USENIX Association...

    2015

  110. [125]

    Giorgos Xanthakis, Antonios Katsarakis, Giorgos Saloustros, and Angelos Bilas. 2024. vLSM: Low tail latency and I/O amplification in LSM-based KV stores. CoRR abs/2407.15581 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.15581 arXiv:2407.15581

    2024 doi arXiv

  111. [126]

    Jiexiong Xu, Yiquan Chen, Yijing Wang, Wenhui Shi, Guoju Fang, Yi Chen, Huasheng Liao, Yang Wang, Hai Lin, Zhen Jin, Qiang Liu, and Wenzhi Chen. 2024. LightPool: A NVMe-oF-based High-performance and Lightweight Storage Pool Architecture for Cloud-Native Distributed Database. I...

    2024

  112. [127]

    Peng Xu, Nannan Zhao, Jiguang Wan, Wei Liu, Shuning Chen, Yuanhui Zhou, Hadeel Albahar, Hanyang Liu, Liu Tang, and Zhi-hu Tan. 2022. Building a Fast and Efficient LSM-tree Store by Integrating Local Storage with Cloud Storage. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimiza...

    2022 doi

  113. [128]

    Shuotao Xu, Sungjin Lee, Sang-Woo Jun, Ming Liu, Jamey Hicks, and Arvind. 2016. Bluecache: a scalable distributed flash-based key-value store. Proc. VLDB Endow. 10, 4 (Nov. 2016), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.14778/3025111.3025113

    2016

  114. [129]

    Yishun Xu, Peiquan Jin, Mingchen Lu, and Xiaoliang Wang. 2023. LeanKV: Efficient Garbage Collection for LSM-Based Key-Value Stores on ZNS SSDs through Lifetime-Based SSTable Clustering. In2023 IEEE 29th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) . 18...

    2023

  115. [130]

    Baoyue Yan, Xuntao Cheng, Bo Jiang, Shibin Chen, Canfang Shang, Jianying Wang, Gui Huang, Xinjun Yang, Wei Cao, and Feifei Li. 2021. Revisiting the design of LSM-tree Based OLTP storage engine with persistent memory. Proc. VLDB Endow. 14, 10 (June 2021), 1872–1885. https://doi...

    2021

  116. [131]

    Lei Yang, Hong Wu, Tieying Zhang, Xuntao Cheng, Feifei Li, Lei Zou, Yujie Wang, Rongyao Chen, Jianying Wang, and Gui Huang. 2020. Leaper: A Learned Prefetcher for Cache Invalidation in LSM-tree based Storage Engines. Proc. VLDB Endow. 13, 11 (2020), 1976–1989. http://www.vldb....

    2020

  117. [132]

    Zhifeng Yang, Quanqing Xu, Shanyan Gao, Chuanhui Yang, Guoping Wang, Yuzhong Zhao, Fanyu Kong, Hao Liu, Wanhong Wang, and Jinliang Xiao. 2023. OceanBase Paetica: A Hybrid Shared-Nothing/Shared-Everything Database for Supporting Single Machine and Distributed Cluster. Proc. VLD...

    2023

  118. [133]

    Zhenkun Yang, Chuanhui Yang, Fusheng Han, Mingqiang Zhuang, Bing Yang, Zhifeng Yang, Xiaojun Cheng, Yuzhong Zhao, Wenhui Shi, Huafeng Xi, Huang Yu, Bin Liu, Yi Pan, Boxue Yin, Junquan Chen, and Quanqing Xu. 2022. OceanBase: a 707 million tpmC distributed relational database sy...

    2022

  119. [134]

    Ting Yao, Yiwen Zhang, Jiguang Wan, Qiu Cui, Liu Tang, Hong Jiang, Changsheng Xie, and Xubin He. 2020. MatrixKV: Reducing Write Stalls and Write Amplification in LSM-tree Based KV Stores with Matrix Container in NVM. In 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 20) ....

    2020

  120. [135]

    Noh, and Young-ri Choi

    Heejin Yoon, Jin Yang, Juyoung Bang, Sam H. Noh, and Young-ri Choi. 2024. Advocating for Key-Value Stores with Workload Pattern Aware Dynamic Compaction. InProceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage) (Santa Clara, CA, USA) (HotSt...

    2024

  121. [136]

    Sigurdarson, Ymir Vigfusson, and Ada Gavrilovska

    Hobin Yoon, Juncheng Yang, Sveinn Fannar Kristjansson, Steinn E. Sigurdarson, Ymir Vigfusson, and Ada Gavrilovska

  122. [137]

    Joohyeong Yoon, Won Seob Jeong, and Won Woo Ro. 2020. Check-In: In-Storage Checkpointing for Key-Value Store System Leveraging Flash-Based SSDs. In 47th ACM/IEEE Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ISCA 2020, Virtual Event / Valencia, Spain, May 30 - June ...

    2020

  123. [138]

    Yu, Markos Markakis, Andreas Kipf, Per-Åke Larson, Umar Farooq Minhas, and Tim Kraska

    Geoffrey X. Yu, Markos Markakis, Andreas Kipf, Per-Åke Larson, Umar Farooq Minhas, and Tim Kraska. 2022. TreeLine: an update-in-place key-value store for modern storage. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16, 1 (Sept. 2022), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.14778/3561261.3561270

    2022

  124. [139]

    Noh, Young ri Choi, and Chun Jason Xue

    Jinghuan Yu, Sam H. Noh, Young ri Choi, and Chun Jason Xue. 2023. ADOC: Automatically Harmonizing Dataflow Between Components in Log-Structured Key-Value Stores for Improved Performance. In 21st USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST) . USENIX Association, Sa...

    2023

  125. [141]

    Baoquan Zhang and David H. C. Du. 2021. NVLSM: A Persistent Memory Key-Value Store Using Log-Structured Merge Tree with Accumulative Compaction. ACM Transactions on Storage (ToS) 17, 3, Article 23 (Aug. 2021), 26 pages

    2021

  126. [142]

    Andersen, Michael Kaminsky, Kimberly Keeton, and Andrew Pavlo

    Huanchen Zhang, Hyeontaek Lim, Viktor Leis, David G. Andersen, Michael Kaminsky, Kimberly Keeton, and Andrew Pavlo. 2018. SuRF: Practical Range Query Filtering with Fast Succinct Tries. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD Conferenc...

    2018

  127. [143]

    Lee, Yinlong Xu, and Si Wu

    Qiang Zhang, Yongkun Li, Patrick P.C. Lee, Yinlong Xu, and Si Wu. 2022. DEPART: Replica Decoupling for Distributed Key-Value Storage. In 20th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 22) . USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 397–412. https://www.usenix.org/con...

    2022

  128. [144]

    Teng Zhang, Jian Tan, Xin Cai, Jianying Wang, Feifei Li, and Jianling Sun. 2022. SA-LSM: optimize data layout for LSM-tree based storage using survival analysis. Proc. VLDB Endow. 15, 10 (June 2022), 2161–2174. https: //doi.org/10.14778/3547305.3547320

    2022

  129. [145]

    Teng Zhang, Jianying Wang, Xuntao Cheng, Hao Xu, Nanlong Yu, Gui Huang, Tieying Zhang, Dengcheng He, Feifei Li, Wei Cao, Zhongdong Huang, and Jianling Sun. 2020. FPGA-Accelerated Compactions for LSM-based Key-Value Store. In 18th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technolog...

    2020

  130. [147]

    Wenhui Zhang, Xingsheng Zhao, Song Jiang, and Hong Jiang. 2021. ChameleonDB: a key-value store for optane persistent memory. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys) (Online Event, United Kingdom) (EuroSys ’21). Association for Computin...

    2021

  131. [148]

    Zigang Zhang, Yinliang Yue, Bingsheng He, Jin Xiong, Mingyu Chen, Lixin Zhang, and Ninghui Sun. 2014. Pipelined Compaction for the LSM-Tree. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 28th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) (IPDPS ’14) . IEEE Computer Soc...

    2014 doi

  132. [149]

    Chenxingyu Zhao, Tapan Chugh, Jaehong Min, Ming Liu, and Arvind Krishnamurthy. 2022. Dremel: Adaptive Configuration Tuning of RocksDB KV-Store. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems 6, 2 (2022), 37:1–37:30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3530903

    2022 doi

  133. [150]

    Wenshao Zhong, Chen Chen, Xingbo Wu, and Jakob Eriksson. 2025. Disco: A Compact Index for LSM-trees.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data (SIGMOD) 3, 1, Article 33 (Feb. 2025), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3709683

    2025 doi

  134. [151]

    Wenshao Zhong, Chen Chen, Xingbo Wu, and Song Jiang. 2021. REMIX: Efficient Range Query for LSM-trees. In 19th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 21) . USENIX Association, 51–64. https://www.usenix.org/ conference/fast21/presentation/zhong

    2021

  135. [152]

    Yijie Zhong, Zhirong Shen, Zixiang Yu, and Jiwu Shu. 2023. Redesigning High-Performance LSM-based Key-Value Stores with Persistent CPU Caches. In 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . 1098–1111. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE55515.2023.00089

    2023

  136. [153]

    Yuanhui Zhou, Jian Zhou, Shuning Chen, Peng Xu, Peng Wu, Yanguang Wang, Xian Liu, Ling Zhan, and Jiguang Wan. 2023. Calcspar: A Contract-Aware LSM Store for Cloud Storage with Low Latency Spikes. In 2023 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 23). USENIX Association, B...

    2023

  137. [154]

    Zichen Zhu, Ju Hyoung Mun, Aneesh Raman, and Manos Athanassoulis. 2021. Reducing Bloom Filter CPU Overhead in LSM-Trees on Modern Storage Devices. In Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Data Management on New Hardware (DAMON) (Virtual Event, China) (DAMON ’21). A...

    2021

  138. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC) (Carlsbad, CA, USA) (SoCC ’18)

    Mutant: Balancing Storage Cost and Latency in LSM-Tree Data Stores. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC) (Carlsbad, CA, USA) (SoCC ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1145/3267809.3267846

  139. [2024]

    ACM Trans

    Asynchronous Compaction Acceleration Scheme for Near-data Processing-enabled LSM-tree-based KV Stores. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 23, 6 (2024), 93:1–93:33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626097

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.