Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 91 references

SHINE: A Scalable HNSW Index in Disaggregated Memory

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Shine proposes a distributed HNSW index that keeps every graph edge and therefore matches the recall of a single-machine HNSW.

desk verdict Graph-preserving HNSW for disaggregated memory is a genuine contribution; the evaluation needs an oracle ablation and an operationalized CSP before the throughput claims are airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17647 v1 pith:NTPI2WDU submitted 2025-07-23 cs.DB

Manuel Widmoser , Daniel Kocher , Nikolaus Augsten This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DB
keywords approximatenearestneighborsearchHNSWdisaggregatedmemoryRDMAdistributedindexcachingqueryroutingcachesegmentationpenalty
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 argues that a Hierarchical Navigable Small World (HNSW) nearest-neighbor index can be spread across disaggregated memory without paying the usual accuracy cost of sharding. Existing distributed approaches partition the graph and lose important edges; Shine instead stores a global HNSW graph whose nodes are scattered over memory nodes with every edge intact, so recall equals a single-machine HNSW. The obstacle is network bandwidth, because one query can read thousands of high-dimensional vectors from remote memory. Shine attacks this with compute-side caching, then with a logical partitioning of the graph so each compute node's cache specializes in one region, and with adaptive routing that sends each query to the compute node whose partition best matches it. On five 100-million-vector benchmark datasets the combined design lifts throughput by up to 1.7x over the uncached baseline and roughly doubles cache hit rates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of logical index partitioning with adaptive query routing over a global HNSW graph that keeps all edges. The index is divided only logically: balanced k-means clusters a small representative sample of nodes into as many near-equal partitions as there are compute nodes, using vector coordinates, and an oracle ranks compute nodes by the distance between the query vector and each partition's centroid. A router forwards each query to the best-ranked compute node that still has capacity in the current batch, relaying messages through a random memory node with two-sided RDMA, and the per-node limits are adjusted by broadcasting working-queue lengths. The cache itself is a lock-free hash table with a cooling-table replacement policy that admits upper-level nodes always and base-level nodes with a small fixed probability.

What would settle it

Run the full system on a workload whose query vectors are uniform in coordinate space but whose HNSW traversal repeatedly crosses cluster boundaries, for example a synthetic manifold where all queries arrive near the same few hub vectors; if the oracle routes to the closest centroid yet cache hit rate and throughput stay at the no-routing level, coordinate clustering is not predicting cache locality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a distributed ANN index in disaggregated memory can have the exact graph structure, and therefore the exact accuracy, of a single-machine HNSW, and that the network bottleneck this creates can be addressed by treating the union of compute-node caches as one logical cache. Shine stores node records, each holding vector components and remote pointers to neighbor lists, on arbitrary memory nodes, and leaves the HNSW search algorithm unchanged except that neighbor lists and vectors are fetched by RDMA. Because a query touches thousands of nodes, Shine clusters the HNSW nodes into as many balanced partitions as there are compute nodes, ranks partitions by centroid distance to the query through an oracle, and adaptively routes each query to the best-ranked compute node with spare capacity. The cache segmentation penalty formalizes how much hit rate is lost because separate caches duplicate entries; in the evaluation, routing reduces this penalty from roughly 70 percent to between 12 and 55 percent and raises throughput by up to 1.7x.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that vector-space proximity, as captured by balanced k-means centroids, predicts which compute node will serve a query with the best cache hit rate; if graph-walk popularity does not align with coordinate clusters, best-fit routing will not raise hit rates and the throughput gains disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployment can scale to billions of vectors by adding memory nodes without rebuilding or re-sharding the index, since the HNSW graph is global and individual nodes live on arbitrary memory nodes.
  • Recall parity with single-machine HNSW means accuracy parameters can be tuned on a small machine and carried over unchanged to the distributed setting.
  • Uniform query workloads, the worst case for caching, still gain throughput because partitioned caches collectively hold more distinct graph nodes.
  • Skewed workloads gain the most, with measured throughput up to 27.8k queries per second and cache hit rates of 70 to 81 percent when routing and caching are combined.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If coordinate proximity tracks graph-walk co-access, the same partition-and-route pattern should transfer to other graph-based ANN indexes, and the centroid oracle could be replaced by a learned router on harder workloads.
  • The cache segmentation penalty is a reusable diagnostic for any distributed cache: measuring it before and after a routing change separates the contribution of cache specialization from the contribution of load balancing.
  • A stress test the paper does not run is a workload with uniform query vectors but hub-heavy graph traversal; such a workload would reveal whether the oracle depends on coordinate space matching traversal locality.
  • The two-sided routing path through a random memory node could become the bottleneck at very high query rates or with many compute nodes, so routing scalability under those conditions is a natural next experiment.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SHINE, a distributed HNSW index for disaggregated memory. The index stores a global HNSW graph on memory nodes and preserves all edges, so the exact traversal and hence the accuracy of a single-machine HNSW is retained by construction. To reduce RDMA read amplification, SHINE adds per-compute-node caching, a logical partition of the graph built with balanced k-means, and an adaptive query-routing policy that sends each query to the compute node whose partition centroid is closest to the query. The evaluation on five 100M-vector datasets reports throughput improvements over three variants of SHINE and a new cache segmentation penalty metric. The paper also positions SHINE as the first graph-preserving HNSW index for disaggregated memory.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, SHINE is a useful contribution to systems for approximate nearest neighbor search on disaggregated memory. The graph-preserving design is a clean and principled way to avoid the accuracy loss that comes from sharding HNSW graphs, and the same-accuracy claim is definitional if the graph and traversal are indeed preserved. The caching, logical partitioning, and adaptive routing address a real bandwidth bottleneck, and the authors provide an open-source implementation. The main risk is that the key mechanism behind the reported gains—the k-means oracle—is not independently validated. The evaluation also lacks measured recall values, error bars, and a comparison with existing distributed HNSW systems. These are addressable with additional experiments, so the paper merits major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.2, §7.2, Table 2] The central efficiency claim—that logical index partitioning and adaptive routing raise throughput by up to 1.7×—rests on an unvalidated assumption: that balanced k-means clustering on the first HNSW level with at least 1000 nodes (i.e., high-level hub nodes) predicts base-level cache locality. The discussion in §5 notes that for TTI, 5770 of 6020 visited nodes are at the base level, so the sample used for clustering is not representative of the nodes that dominate cache misses. Moreover, Figure 7 compares routing policies that all use the same k-means oracle; there is no random-routing control or ablation that isolates the oracle's contribution. Please add a random-routing baseline and a variant that routes according to a ground-truth partition derived from base-level query traversal; report CHR and throughput for each. Without this, the 1.7× improvement cannot be attributed to the proposed routing scheme.
  2. [§6.1, Table 2] The cache segmentation penalty is defined in Eq. (1) as CSP = 1 − CHR/CHRmax, where CHRmax is the hit rate of a hypothetical single shared cache of the same total size. The paper reports CSP values in Table 2, but CHRmax is never measured or described. A reader cannot verify whether the reported CSP values are consistent with Definition 6.1, and the metric is not falsifiable from the data as presented. Please report how CHRmax is obtained (e.g., by simulating a global cache with deduplicated entries across all compute nodes) and include the CHRmax values used for each dataset and workload.
  3. [§8.1, §8.2] The abstract and Section 3 claim that SHINE 'reaches the same accuracy as a single-machine HNSW.' This is justified by construction, because the graph is preserved, but the paper explicitly states that accuracy is not evaluated ('our goal is not to evaluate the accuracy'). No end-to-end recall measurement is reported for the actual distributed implementation, so the claim is not verified experimentally. Please report R@10 for SHINE and for a single-machine HNSW on the same query sets and efS values, even for a single configuration, to confirm that the distributed remote-pointer traversal and caching do not introduce any accuracy regression.
  4. [§8.2–§8.4] The throughput improvements are reported without error bars or repeated runs. The statements such as 'improvement of 1.7× w.r.t. Shine' are single numbers from presumably one run, and the comparison is only against the authors' own baselines. Since the efficiency claim is central, please report the number of runs and the variance, or clearly state that each point is a single run. It would also strengthen the paper to include at least one comparison against a partitioned distributed HNSW baseline (e.g., the d-HNSW approach discussed in §9) to contextualize the gains.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.2] The admission probability for base-level nodes (1%) is a tuned parameter that strongly affects cache behavior. Please provide a sensitivity plot or a short discussion of how this value was chosen.
  2. [§6.2] The choice of the first level from the top with at least 1000 nodes as the clustering sample is heuristic. Please justify this choice or show that results are robust to the sample level.
  3. [§7.1] The statement 'a single core on our MNs can route about 167k queries per second' is given without a measurement or citation. Either provide the measurement or remove the specific number.
  4. [§3.1] In the text, 'modern CPUs use only 248 bits of the address space' should be '48 bits' (or '2^48 addresses').
  5. [§8.4] The cache size sensitivity is only shown for uniform workloads. A brief statement or figure for skewed workloads would make the sensitivity analysis complete.
  6. [§3.4] The limitation that the index does not support efficient updates is acknowledged in the text. Given that this is a static index, a short statement in the conclusion reiterating this scope would help readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accuracy claim is a direct consequence of preserving the HNSW graph, and the efficiency claims are empirically evaluated against internal baselines rather than derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central accuracy claim is not circular. Shine explicitly preserves the original HNSW graph (Section 3.1: 'we build a global HNSW index that preserves the original HNSW structure'), and the search procedure is identical to standard HNSW except for remote reads (Section 3.2). 'Same accuracy as a single-machine HNSW' is a logical consequence of this construction, not a prediction fitted from data. The efficiency claims rest on measured cache hit rates, cache segmentation penalties, and throughputs in Section 8, with comparisons among Shine-Baseline, Shine-Cached, and Shine-Cached-Aqr. The oracle in Section 6.2 is a heuristic (balanced k-means on a sampled HNSW level) whose routing decisions are evaluated empirically, not derived from the target metric. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then used to predict that same subset. The cache admission probability and batch size are tuned constants, not predictions. The only self-citation in the paper, reference [72], appears in related work and is not load-bearing for any central claim. The cache segmentation penalty definition compares CHR to a hypothetical shared cache, which is a normalization choice rather than a circular reduction. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs, so no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the graph-preservation identity, which is true by construction if traversal is unchanged, plus empirical assumptions about clustering locality, an idealized CHRmax, and routing capacity. Several configuration parameters are hand-tuned, but none are used to derive the accuracy claim.

free parameters (5)
  • efS search candidate size per dataset = BIGANN 80, DEEP 100, SPACEV 100, TTI 250, TURING 150
    Tuned to hit 95% recall; directly controls the number of nodes visited, hence network traffic and throughput.
  • base-level cache admission probability = 0.01 (1%)
    Set after the authors' experiments; not derived from a model.
  • cache size ratio = 0.05 default, varied 2-10%
    Configuration choice; throughput results depend strongly on it.
  • routing batch size b = 1000
    Chosen for experiments; controls load-balancing granularity.
  • router synchronization threshold t = 1000
    Chosen for experiments; only synchronizes progress broadcasts.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption HNSW traversal is identical when nodes are placed on remote memory, so preserving edges preserves recall exactly.
    Used in Sections 3.1-3.2 to claim the same accuracy as single-machine HNSW; no recall experiment is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Balanced k-means on vector coordinates approximates HNSW graph traversal locality.
    Underlies logical index partitioning and the oracle in Sections 6.2 and 7.2; not proven or benchmarked against other clusterings.
  • domain assumption A single shared cache of size C models the best possible distributed cache hit rate CHRmax.
    Definition 6.1 relies on this idealized scenario; the evaluation does not say how CHRmax is obtained.
  • domain assumption Memory-node CPUs can sustain two-sided RDMA routing for the achieved query rates.
    Section 7.1 estimates 167k routed queries per second per MN core, but no direct routing bottleneck measurement is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Cache segmentation penalty (CSP)
    purpose: Measures cache capacity wasted by duplicate entries across compute nodes relative to an idealized shared cache.
    Defined in Definition 6.1 via CHRmax, a hypothetical single shared cache that is not directly measured on the evaluated hardware; it is a summarizing metric, not an externally falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SHINE: A Scalable HNSW Index in Disaggregated Memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTPI2WDU

@misc{pith2026250717647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SHINE: A Scalable HNSW Index in Disaggregated Memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTPI2WDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17647}
}
read the original abstract

Approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) search is a fundamental problem in computer science for which in-memory graph-based methods, such as Hierarchical Navigable Small World (HNSW), perform exceptionally well. To scale beyond billions of high-dimensional vectors, the index must be distributed. The disaggregated memory architecture physically separates compute and memory into two distinct hardware units and has become popular in modern data centers. Both units are connected via RDMA networks that allow compute nodes to directly access remote memory and perform all the computations, posing unique challenges for disaggregated indexes. In this work, we propose a scalable HNSW index for ANN search in disaggregated memory. In contrast to existing distributed approaches, which partition the graph at the cost of accuracy, our method builds a graph-preserving index that reaches the same accuracy as a single-machine HNSW. Continuously fetching high-dimensional vector data from remote memory leads to severe network bandwidth limitations, which we overcome by employing an efficient caching mechanism. Since answering a single query involves processing numerous unique graph nodes, caching alone is not sufficient to achieve high scalability. We logically combine the caches of the compute nodes to increase the overall cache effectiveness and confirm the efficiency and scalability of our method in our evaluation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Concept of an HNSW index. HNSW Search. Given a query vector𝑄, the search procedure al￾ways starts from a fixed entry point 𝐸 at the top-most layer. The neighbors of 𝐸 (and their neighbors) are greedily traversed until the closest neighbor of𝑄 (i.e., 1-NN) is identified. The closest neighbor of level𝑙 serves as an entry point for level𝑙−1. Note that if a node exists at level 𝑙 in the graph, it will also exist at all … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Physical memory layout of a single HNSW node. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. State-of-the-art caching for HNSW index traversals. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cache implementation. Admitting a node to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example query routing from CN1 to CN4. Overall, the synchronization effort required when using one-sided verbs is high relative to the lightweight task of routing. As RDMA atomic operations hardly scale under contention [33, 83], Shine employs a two-sided approach. Two…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of query routing policies. execution skew, i.e., most queries are routed to a small subset of CNs responsible for the most frequently accessed partitions, creating bot￾tlenecks. For the skewed workload in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Throughput over increasing compute threads for uniform queries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Throughput over increasing compute threads for skewed queries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cache segmentation penalty (CSP) over increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of cache size on query performance for a uniform workload. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Impact of skew on query performance. queries are processed in batches to reduce network bandwidth usage by avoiding multiple transfers of the same partitions when queries in a batch have overlapping shards. Doshi et al. [14] propose LANNS, a Spark-based method that us…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aguilera, Naama Ben-David, Rachid Guerraoui, Antoine Murat, Athanasios Xygkis, and Igor Zablotchi

    Marcos K. Aguilera, Naama Ben-David, Rachid Guerraoui, Antoine Murat, Athanasios Xygkis, and Igor Zablotchi. 2023. uBFT: Microsecond-Scale BFT using Disaggregated Memory. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2, ASPLOS 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, March 25-2...

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Daniel Aloise, Amit Deshpande, Pierre Hansen, and Preyas Popat. 2009. NP-hardness of Euclidean sum-of-squares clustering.Mach. Learn. 75, 2 (2009), 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10994-009-5103-0

    doi:10.1007/s10994-009-5103-0 2009

  3. [3]

    Hang An, Fang Wang, Dan Feng, Xiaomin Zou, Zefeng Liu, and Jianshun Zhang. 2023. Marlin: A Concurrent and Write-Optimized B+-tree Index on Disaggregated Memory. In Proceedings of the 52nd International Conference on Parallel Processing, ICPP 2023, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, August 7-10, 2023 . ACM, 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1145/3605573.3605576

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Akari Asai, Sewon Min, Zexuan Zhong, and Danqi Chen. 2023. Retrieval-based Language Models and Applications. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Tutorial Abstracts, ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023 , Yun-Nung Vivian Chen, Margot Mieskes, and Siva Reddy (Eds.). Association for Computational ...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-tutorials.6 2023

  5. [5]

    Martin Aumüller, Erik Bernhardsson, and Alexander John Faithfull. 2020. ANN-Benchmarks: A benchmarking tool for approximate nearest neighbor algorithms. Inf. Syst. 87 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IS.2019.02.006

    doi:10.1016/j.is.2019.02.006 2020

  6. [6]

    Bennett, P.S

    K.P. Bennett, P.S. Bradley, and A. Demiriz. 2000.Constrained K-Means Clustering. Technical Report MSR-TR-2000-65. 8 pages. https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/publication/constrained-k-means-clustering/

    2000

  7. [7]

    Wei Cao, Yingqiang Zhang, Xinjun Yang, Feifei Li, Sheng Wang, Qingda Hu, Xuntao Cheng, Zongzhi Chen, Zhenjun Liu, Jing Fang, Bo Wang, Yuhui Wang, Haiqing Sun, Ze Yang, Zhushi Cheng, Sen Chen, Jian Wu, Wei Hu, Jianwei Zhao, Yusong Gao, Songlu Cai, Yunyang Zhang, and Jiawang Tong. 2021. PolarDB Serverless: A Cloud Native Database for Disaggregated Data Cent...

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Qi Chen, Bing Zhao, Haidong Wang, Mingqin Li, Chuanjie Liu, Zengzhong Li, Mao Yang, and Jingdong Wang. 2021. SPANN: Highly-efficient Billion-scale Approximate Nearest Neighborhood Search. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, Marc...

    2021

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Rihan Chen, Bin Liu, Han Zhu, Yaoxuan Wang, Qi Li, Buting Ma, Qingbo Hua, Jun Jiang, Yunlong Xu, Hongbo Deng, and Bo Zheng. 2022. Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search under Neural Similarity Metric for Large-Scale Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Con...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Xinyu Chen, Jiannan Tian, Ian Beaver, Cynthia Freeman, Yan Yan, Jianguo Wang, and Dingwen Tao. 2024. FCBench: Cross-Domain Benchmarking of Lossless Compression for Floating-point Data. Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 6 (2024), 1418–1431. https://doi.org/10.14778/3648160.3648180

    2024

  3. [11]

    Rieke de Maeyer, Sami Sieranoja, and Pasi Fränti. 2023. Balanced k- means revisited. Applied Computing and Intelligence 3, 2 (2023), 145–179. https://doi.org/10.3934/aci.2023008

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Shiyuan Deng, Xiao Yan, Kelvin Kai Wing Ng, Chenyu Jiang, and James Cheng

  5. [13]

    Razenshteyn, and Tal Wagner

    Yihe Dong, Piotr Indyk, Ilya P. Razenshteyn, and Tal Wagner. 2023. Learning Space Partitions for Nearest Neighbor Search.IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 47, 3 (2023), 55–68. http://sites.computer.org/debull/A23sept/p55.pdf

    2023

  6. [14]

    Ishita Doshi, Dhritiman Das, Ashish Bhutani, Rajeev Kumar, Rushi Bhatt, and Niranjan Balasubramanian. 2021. LANNS: A Web-Scale Approximate Nearest Neighbor Lookup System. Proc. VLDB Endow. 15, 4 (2021), 850–858. https://doi.org/10.14778/3503585.3503594

    2021

  7. [15]

    Aleksandar Dragojevic, Dushyanth Narayanan, Miguel Castro, and Orion Hodson

  8. [16]

    Cong Fu, Chao Xiang, Changxu Wang, and Deng Cai. 2019. Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search With The Navigating Spreading-out Graph.Proc. VLDB Endow. 12, 5 (2019), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.14778/3303753.3303754

    2019

  9. [17]

    Narendra

    Keinosuke Fukunaga and Patrenahalli M. Narendra. 1975. A Branch and Bound Algorithms for Computing k-nearest Neighbors. IEEE Trans. Computers 24, 7 (1975), 750–753. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-C.1975.224297

    1975

  10. [18]

    Jianyang Gao and Cheng Long. 2024. RaBitQ: Quantizing High-Dimensional Vectors with a Theoretical Error Bound for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 2, 3 (2024), 167. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654970

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Qianyu Guo, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey.CoRR abs/2312.10997 (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2312.10997 arXi...

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Tiezheng Ge, Kaiming He, Qifa Ke, and Jian Sun. 2013. Optimized Product Quantization for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. In2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Portland, OR, USA, June 23-28, 2013. IEEE Computer Society, 2946–2953. https://doi.o...

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Aristides Gionis, Piotr Indyk, and Rajeev Motwani. 1999. Similarity Search in High Dimensions via Hashing. In VLDB’99, Proceedings of 25th Interna- tional Conference on Very Large Data Bases, September 7-10, 1999, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK , Malcolm P. Atkinson, Maria E. Orlowsk...

    1999

  14. [22]

    Siddharth Gollapudi, Neel Karia, Varun Sivashankar, Ravishankar Krishnaswamy, Nikit Begwani, Swapnil Raz, Yiyong Lin, Yin Zhang, Neelam Mahapatro, Premkumar Srinivasan, Amit Singh, and Harsha Vardhan Simhadri. 2023. Filtered-DiskANN: Graph Algorithms for Approximate Nearest Ne...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Lars Gottesbüren, Laxman Dhulipala, Rajesh Jayaram, and Jakub Lacki. 2024. Unleashing Graph Partitioning for Large-Scale Nearest Neighbor Search. CoRR abs/2403.01797 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2403.01797 arXiv:2403.01797

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fabian Groh, Lukas Ruppert, Patrick Wieschollek, and Hendrik P. A. Lensch. 2023. GGNN: Graph-Based GPU Nearest Neighbor Search. IEEE Trans. Big Data 9, 1 (2023), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2022.3161156

    2023

  17. [25]

    Jing Guo, Zihao Chang, Sa Wang, Haiyang Ding, Yihui Feng, Liang Mao, and Yungang Bao. 2019. Who limits the resource efficiency of my datacenter: an analysis of Alibaba datacenter traces. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Quality of Service, IWQoS 2019, Phoenix, ...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Zhiyuan Guo, Yizhou Shan, Xuhao Luo, Yutong Huang, and Yiying Zhang. 2022. Clio: a hardware-software co-designed disaggregated memory system. InASPLOS ’22: 27th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Lausanne, Swi...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Kiana Hajebi, Yasin Abbasi-Yadkori, Hossein Shahbazi, and Hong Zhang. 2011. Fast Approximate Nearest-Neighbor Search with k-Nearest Neighbor Graph. In IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, Ju...

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Piotr Indyk and Rajeev Motwani. 1998. Approximate Nearest Neighbors: Towards Removing the Curse of Dimensionality. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Dallas, Texas, USA, May 23-26, 1998, Jeffrey Scott Vitter (Ed.). ACM, 604–613. ht...

    1998

  21. [29]

    Junhyeok Jang, Hanjin Choi, Hanyeoreum Bae, Seungjun Lee, Miryeong Kwon, and Myoungsoo Jung. 2023. CXL-ANNS: Software-Hardware Col- laborative Memory Disaggregation and Computation for Billion-Scale Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. In Proceedings of the 2023 USENIX Annual ...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Hervé Jégou, Matthijs Douze, and Cordelia Schmid. 2011. Product Quantization for Nearest Neighbor Search. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.33, 1 (2011), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2010.57

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Wenqi Jiang, Shigang Li, Yu Zhu, Johannes de Fine Licht, Zhenhao He, Runbin Shi, Cédric Renggli, Shuai Zhang, Theodoros Rekatsinas, Torsten Hoefler, and Gustavo Alonso. 2023. Co-design Hardware and Algorithm for Vector Search. In Proceedings of the International Conference for...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2021. Billion-Scale Sim- ilarity Search with GPUs. IEEE Trans. Big Data 7, 3 (2021), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2019.2921572

    2021

  25. [33]

    Andersen

    Anuj Kalia, Michael Kaminsky, and David G. Andersen. 2016. Design Guidelines for High Performance RDMA Systems. InProceedings of the 2016 USENIX Annual 13 Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2016, Denver, CO, USA, June 22-24, 2016, Ajay Gulati and Hakim Weatherspoon (Eds.). USENI...

    2016

  26. [34]

    Kimberly Keeton. 2015. The Machine: An Architecture for Memory-centric Com- puting. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Runtime and Operating Systems for Supercomputers, ROSS 2015, Portland, OR, USA, June 16, 2015, Torsten Hoefler and Kamil Iskra (Eds.). ACM, 1...

    2015

  27. [35]

    Seoyoung Ko, Hyunjeong Shim, Wanju Doh, Sungmin Yun, Jinin So, Yongsuk Kwon, Sang-Soo Park, Si-Dong Roh, Minyong Yoon, Taeksang Song, and Jung Ho Ahn. 2025. Cosmos: A CXL-Based Full In-Memory System for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. IEEE Comput. Archit. Lett. 24, 1 (202...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Seung-Seob Lee, Yanpeng Yu, Yupeng Tang, Anurag Khandelwal, Lin Zhong, and Abhishek Bhattacharjee. 2021. MIND: In-Network Memory Management for Disaggregated Data Centers. In SOSP ’21: ACM SIGOPS 28th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Virtual Event / Koblenz, Germany,...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Viktor Leis, Michael Haubenschild, Alfons Kemper, and Thomas Neumann. 2018. LeanStore: In-Memory Data Management beyond Main Memory. In34th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2018, Paris, France, April 16-19,

    2018

  30. [38]

    Pengfei Li, Yu Hua, Pengfei Zuo, Zhangyu Chen, and Jiajie Sheng. 2023. ROLEX: A Scalable RDMA-oriented Learned Key-Value Store for Dis- aggregated Memory Systems. In 21st USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies, FAST 2023, Santa Clara, CA, USA, February 21-23, 2023,...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Wen Li, Ying Zhang, Yifang Sun, Wei Wang, Mingjie Li, Wenjie Zhang, and Xuemin Lin. 2020. Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search on High Dimensional Data - Experiments, Analyses, and Improvement.IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 32, 8 (2020), 1475–1488. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.20...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Yi Liu, Fei Fang, and Chen Qian. 2025. Efficient Vector Search on Disaggregated Memory with d-HNSW. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems, HotStorage 2025, Boston, MA, USA, July 10-11, 2025 . ACM, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3736548.3737822

    2025

  33. [41]

    Ying Liu, Dengsheng Zhang, Guojun Lu, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2007. A survey of content-based image retrieval with high-level semantics. Pattern Recognit. 40, 1 (2007), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PATCOG.2006.04.045

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Baotong Lu, Kaisong Huang, Chieh-Jan Mike Liang, Tianzheng Wang, and Eric Lo. 2024. DEX: Scalable Range Indexing on Disaggregated Memory.Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 10 (2024), 2603–2616. https://doi.org/10.14778/3675034.3675050

    2024

  35. [43]

    Lyu, and Yangfan Zhou

    Xuchuan Luo, Jiacheng Shen, Pengfei Zuo, Xin Wang, Michael R. Lyu, and Yangfan Zhou. 2024. CHIME: A Cache-Efficient and High-Performance Hybrid Index on Disaggregated Memory. InProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 30th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP 2024, Austin, TX,...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Lyu, and Yangfan Zhou

    Xuchuan Luo, Pengfei Zuo, Jiacheng Shen, Jiazhen Gu, Xin Wang, Michael R. Lyu, and Yangfan Zhou. 2023. SMART: A High-Performance Adaptive Radix Tree for Disaggregated Memory. In 17th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI 2023, Boston, MA, USA, J...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Clifford A. Lynch. 1988. Selectivity Estimation and Query Optimization in Large Databases with Highly Skewed Distribution of Column Values. In Fourteenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, August 29 - September 1, 1988, Los Angeles, California, USA, Proceedings...

    1988

  38. [46]

    Malinen and Pasi Fränti

    Mikko I. Malinen and Pasi Fränti. 2014. Balanced K-Means for Clustering. In Structural, Syntactic, and Statistical Pattern Recognition - Joint IAPR International Workshop, S+SSPR 2014, Joensuu, Finland, August 20-22, 2014. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) , Pasi...

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    Yury Malkov, Alexander Ponomarenko, Andrey Logvinov, and Vladimir Krylov

  40. [48]

    Malkov and Dmitry A

    Yury A. Malkov and Dmitry A. Yashunin. 2020. Efficient and Robust Ap- proximate Nearest Neighbor Search Using Hierarchical Navigable Small World Graphs. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 42, 4 (2020), 824–836. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2889473

    2020

  41. [49]

    Waldspurger

    Hasan Al Maruf, Yuhong Zhong, Hongyi Wang, Mosharaf Chowdhury, Asaf Cidon, and Carl A. Waldspurger. 2023. Memtrade: Marketplace for Disaggregated Memory Clouds. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3589985

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Stanislav Morozov and Artem Babenko. 2018. Non-metric Similarity Graphs for Maximum Inner Product Search. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montréal, Canad...

    2018

  43. [51]

    Approximate nearest neighbor algorithm based on navigable small world graphs. Inf. Syst. 45 (2014), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IS.2013.10.006

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    Marius Muja and David G. Lowe. 2014. Scalable Nearest Neighbor Algorithms for High Dimensional Data. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.36, 11 (2014), 2227–2240. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2014.2321376

    2014

  45. [53]

    James Jie Pan, Jianguo Wang, and Guoliang Li. 2024. Survey of vec- tor database management systems. VLDB J. 33, 5 (2024), 1591–1615. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00778-024-00864-X

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Koutsovasilis, Andrea Reale, Kostas Katrinis, and H

    Christian Pinto, Dimitris Syrivelis, Michele Gazzetti, Panos K. Koutsovasilis, Andrea Reale, Kostas Katrinis, and H. Peter Hofstee. 2020. ThymesisFlow: A Software-Defined, HW/SW co-Designed Interconnect Stack for Rack-Scale Memory Disaggregation. In 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM Intern...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Marius Muja and David G. Lowe. 2009. Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbors with Automatic Algorithm Configuration. InVISAPP 2009 - Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications, Lisboa, Portugal, February 5-8, 2009 - Volume 1, Alpes...

    2009

  48. [56]

    Parikshit Ram and Alexander G. Gray. 2012. Maximum inner-product search using cone trees. In The 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’12, Beijing, China, August 12-16, 2012, Qiang Yang, Deepak Agarwal, and Jian Pei (Eds.). ACM, ...

    2012

  49. [57]

    Jie Ren, Minjia Zhang, and Dong Li. 2020. HM-ANN: Efficient Billion-Point Nearest Neighbor Search on Heterogeneous Memory. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 202...

    2020

  50. [58]

    Ben Schafer, Dan Frankowski, Jonathan L

    J. Ben Schafer, Dan Frankowski, Jonathan L. Herlocker, and Shilad Sen. 2007. Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems. In The Adaptive Web, Methods and Strategies of Web Personalization (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Peter Brusilovsky, Alfred Kobsa, and Wolfgang Nejdl...

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    William W. Pugh. 1990. Skip Lists: A Probabilistic Alternative to Balanced Trees. Commun. ACM 33, 6 (1990), 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1145/78973.78977

    1990

  52. [60]

    Anshumali Shrivastava and Ping Li. 2012. Fast Near Neighbor Search in High-Dimensional Binary Data. InMachine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases - European Conference, ECML PKDD 2012, Bristol, UK, September 24-28, 2012. Proceedings, Part I (Lecture Notes in Computer...

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    Harsha Vardhan Simhadri, George Williams, Martin Aumüller, Matthijs Douze, Artem Babenko, Dmitry Baranchuk, Qi Chen, Lucas Hosseini, Ravishankar Krishnaswamy, Gopal Srinivasa, Suhas Jayaram Subramanya, and Jingdong Wang. 2021. Results of the NeurIPS’21 Challenge on Billion-Sca...

    2021

  54. [62]

    2019.DiskANN: fast accurate billion-point nearest neighbor search on a single node

    Suhas Jayaram Subramanya, Devvrit, Rohan Kadekodi, Ravishankar Krishaswamy, and Harsha Vardhan Simhadri. 2019.DiskANN: fast accurate billion-point nearest neighbor search on a single node. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA

    2019

  55. [63]

    Yizhou Shan, Yutong Huang, Yilun Chen, and Yiying Zhang. 2019. LegoOS: A Disseminated, Distributed OS for Hardware Resource Disaggregation. In Proceedings of the 2019 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2019, Renton, W A, USA, July 10-12, 2019, Dahlia Malkhi and Dan...

    2019

  56. [64]

    Walton, Alfred G

    Christopher B. Walton, Alfred G. Dale, and Roy M. Jenevein. 1991. A Taxonomy and Performance Model of Data Skew Effects in Parallel Joins. In17th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, September 3-6, 1991, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, Proceedings, Guy M. Lohman, Am...

    1991

  57. [65]

    Jing Wang, Qing Wang, Yuhao Zhang, and Jiwu Shu. 2025. Deft: A Scalable Tree Index for Disaggregated Memory. InProceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys 2025, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 30 March 2025 - 3 April 2025. ACM, 886–901. https://do...

    2025

  58. [66]

    Mengzhao Wang, Weizhi Xu, Xiaomeng Yi, Songlin Wu, Zhangyang Peng, Xiangyu Ke, Yunjun Gao, Xiaoliang Xu, Rentong Guo, and Charles Xie. 2024. Starling: An I/O-Efficient Disk-Resident Graph Index Framework for High- Dimensional Vector Similarity Search on Data Segment.Proc. ACM ...

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    Bing Tian, Haikun Liu, Zhuohui Duan, Xiaofei Liao, Hai Jin, and Yu Zhang

  60. [68]

    Qing Wang, Youyou Lu, and Jiwu Shu. 2022. Sherman: A Write-Optimized Distributed B+Tree Index on Disaggregated Memory. InSIGMOD ’22: International Conference on Management of Data, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 12 - 17, 2022 , Zachary G. Ives, Angela Bonifati, and Amr El Abbadi ...

    2022

  61. [69]

    Tamer Özsu, and Walid G

    Ruihong Wang, Jianguo Wang, Prishita Kadam, M. Tamer Özsu, and Walid G. Aref. 2023. dLSM: An LSM-Based Index for Memory Disaggregation. In39th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2023, Anaheim, CA, USA, April 3-7, 2023. IEEE, 2835–2849. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2023

  62. [70]

    Weaviate. [n.d.]. Vector Indexing. https://weaviate.io/developers/weaviate/ concepts/vector-index#deletions

  63. [71]

    Roger Weber, Hans-Jörg Schek, and Stephen Blott. 1998. A Quantitative Analysis and Performance Study for Similarity-Search Methods in High-Dimensional Spaces. In VLDB’98, Proceedings of 24rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, August 24-27, 1998, New York City, ...

    1998

  64. [72]

    Mengzhao Wang, Xiaoliang Xu, Qiang Yue, and Yuxiang Wang. 2021. A Comprehensive Survey and Experimental Comparison of Graph-Based Approx- imate Nearest Neighbor Search. Proc. VLDB Endow. 14, 11 (2021), 1964–1978. https://doi.org/10.14778/3476249.3476255

    2021

  65. [73]

    Holtmann-Rice, David Simcha, and Felix X

    Xiang Wu, Ruiqi Guo, Ananda Theertha Suresh, Sanjiv Kumar, Daniel N. Holtmann-Rice, David Simcha, and Felix X. Yu. 2017. Multiscale Quantization for Fast Similarity Search. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processi...

    2017

  66. [74]

    Yubao Wu, Ruoming Jin, and Xiang Zhang. 2014. Fast and unified local search for random walk based k-nearest-neighbor query in large graphs. InInternational Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2014, Snowbird, UT, USA, June 22-27, 2014, Curtis E. Dyreson, Feifei Li, and M. ...

    2014

  67. [75]

    Wentao Xiao, Yueyang Zhan, Rui Xi, Mengshu Hou, and Jianming Liao

  68. [76]

    Yuanhang Yu, Dong Wen, Ying Zhang, Lu Qin, Wenjie Zhang, and Xuemin Lin. 2022. GPU-accelerated Proximity Graph Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search and Construction. In 38th IEEE International Conference on Data Engi- neering, ICDE 2022, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 9-12, 2022 ....

    2022

  69. [77]

    Manuel Widmoser, Daniel Kocher, and Nikolaus Augsten. 2024. Scalable Distributed Inverted List Indexes in Disaggregated Memory.Proc. ACM Manag. Data 2, 3 (2024), 171. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654974

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    Jianjin Zhang, Zheng Liu, Weihao Han, Shitao Xiao, Ruicheng Zheng, Yingxia Shao, Hao Sun, Hanqing Zhu, Premkumar Srinivasan, Weiwei Deng, Qi Zhang, and Xing Xie. 2022. Uni-Retriever: Towards Learning the Unified Embedding Based Retriever in Bing Sponsored Search. InKDD ’22: Th...

    2022

  71. [79]

    Qizhen Zhang, Yifan Cai, Xinyi Chen, Sebastian Angel, Ang Chen, Vincent Liu, and Boon Thau Loo. 2020. Understanding the Effect of Data Center Resource Disaggregation on Production DBMSs. Proc. VLDB Endow.13, 9 (2020), 1568–1581. https://doi.org/10.14778/3397230.3397249

    2020

  72. [80]

    Yanhao Zhang, Pan Pan, Yun Zheng, Kang Zhao, Yingya Zhang, Xiaofeng Ren, and Rong Jin. 2018. Visual Search at Alibaba. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, London, UK, August 19-23, 2018, Yike Guo and Fa...

    2018

  73. [81]

    CoRR abs/2407.07871 (2024)

    Enhancing HNSW Index for Real-Time Updates: Addressing Unreach- able Points and Performance Degradation. CoRR abs/2407.07871 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.07871 arXiv:2407.07871

    2024 doi arXiv

  74. [82]

    Tobias Ziegler, Carsten Binnig, and Viktor Leis. 2022. ScaleStore: A Fast and Cost-Efficient Storage Engine using DRAM, NVMe, and RDMA. InSIGMOD ’22: International Conference on Management of Data, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 12 - 17, 2022, Zachary G. Ives, Angela Bonifati, an...

    2022

  75. [83]

    Shulin Zeng, Zhenhua Zhu, Jun Liu, Haoyu Zhang, Guohao Dai, Zixuan Zhou, Shuangchen Li, Xuefei Ning, Yuan Xie, Huazhong Yang, and Yu Wang. 2023. DF-GAS: a Distributed FPGA-as-a-Service Architecture towards Billion-Scale Graph-based Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. In Proce...

    2023

  76. [84]

    Tobias Ziegler, Sumukha Tumkur Vani, Carsten Binnig, Rodrigo Fonseca, and Tim Kraska. 2019. Designing Distributed Tree-based Index Structures for Fast RDMA- capable Networks. InProceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Manage- ment of Data, SIGMOD Conference 2019, Am...

    2019

  77. [85]

    Pengfei Zuo, Jiazhao Sun, Liu Yang, Shuangwu Zhang, and Yu Hua. 2021. One-sided RDMA-Conscious Extendible Hashing for Disaggregated Memory. In Proceedings of the 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2021, July 14-16, 2021, Irina Calciu and Geoff Kuenning (Eds.)....

    2021

  78. [87]

    Weijie Zhao, Shulong Tan, and Ping Li. 2020. SONG: Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search on GPU. In 36th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2020, Dallas, TX, USA, April 20-24, 2020 . IEEE, 1033–1044. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE48307.2020.00094

    2020

  79. [89]

    Tobias Ziegler, Jacob Nelson-Slivon, Viktor Leis, and Carsten Binnig. 2023. Design Guidelines for Correct, Efficient, and Scalable Synchronization us- ing One-Sided RDMA. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 1, 2 (2023), 131:1–131:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3589276

    2023 doi

  80. [2014]

    InProceedings of the 11th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI 2014, Seattle, W A, USA, April 2-4, 2014, Ratul Mahajan and Ion Stoica (Eds.)

    FaRM: Fast Remote Memory. InProceedings of the 11th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI 2014, Seattle, W A, USA, April 2-4, 2014, Ratul Mahajan and Ion Stoica (Eds.). USENIX Association, 401–414. https: //www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi14/techn...

    2014

  81. [2018]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2018.00026

    IEEE Computer Society, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2018.00026

    2018

  82. [2019]

    In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (IEEE BigData), Los Angeles, CA, USA, December 9-12, 2019 , Chaitanya K

    Pyramid: A General Framework for Distributed Similarity Search on Large-scale Datasets. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (IEEE BigData), Los Angeles, CA, USA, December 9-12, 2019 , Chaitanya K. Baru, Jun Huan, Latifur Khan, Xiaohua Hu, Ronay Ak, Yuanyuan Tian,...

    2019

  83. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2024, Santa Clara, CA, USA, July 10-12, 2024 , Saurabh Bagchi and Yiying Zhang (Eds.)

    Scalable Billion-point Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search Us- ing SmartSSDs. In Proceedings of the 2024 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC 2024, Santa Clara, CA, USA, July 10-12, 2024 , Saurabh Bagchi and Yiying Zhang (Eds.). USENIX Association, 1135–1150. https:/...

    2024

Pith tools

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