No, but it could help people build those synthesis tools much faster.
P4Synth takes a (mathematical) group of functions/expressions and finds strong candidate implementations for every class in that group. Then, as long we have a fast (expression → class) mapping for that group we can use the generated solutions as a database embedded within the compiler for automated expression replacement (or mapping from expressions to circuits/technology).
Vivado/Quartus (FPGA) technology mapping and LLVM's InstCombine stage are essentially this. InstCombine's pattern library is partially human-authored, partially generated by search tools; it lists ~30k subexpression replacements like a+a+a → a*3. P4Synth competes with those search tools. For hard function classes, existing methods might take weeks on a supercomputer: P4Synth speeds that up exponentially.
It only solves a narrow toy problem right now (4-input boolean functions), but I believe the technique could scale with modifications (like A* style prioritisation over signal-set novelty and implementation score).
Oh right. That's sensible enough. Makes total sense to parallelise across multiple cores.
I wouldn't expect a strictly linear speed-up due to contention on the memory bus, but it's not as bad as flat-lining after engaging 2-3 cores. On most AWS Graviton instances you should be able to pull ~5.5 GB/s per-core even with all cores active, and that becomes less of a bottleneck when considering you'll typically run a sequence of compute operations between memory round-trips (not just delta).
Haha... GPUs are great. But do you mean to suggest we should swap a single ARM core for a top-line GPU with 10k+ cores and compare numbers on that basis? Surely not.
Let's consider this in terms of throughput-per-$ so we have a fungible measurement unit. I think we're all agreed that this problem's bottleneck is the host memory<->compute bus so the question is: for $1 which server architecture lets you pump more data from memory to a compute core?
It looks like you can get a H100 GPU with 16xPCIe 5.0 (128 GB/s theoretical, 100 GB/s realistic) for $1.99/hr from RunPod.
With an m8g.8xlarge instance (32 ARM CPU cores) you should get much-better RAM<->CPU throughput (175 GB/s realistic) for $1.44/hr from AWS.
I just did a mini-ablation study for this (prefix sum). By getting rid of the cross-block carry (16 values), you can increase perf from 19.85 to 23.45 GB/s: the gain is modest as most performance is lost on accumulator carry within the block.
An absolute value every 16 deltas would undermine compression: a greater interval would lose even the modest performance gain, while a smaller interval would completely lose the compressibility benefits of delta coding.
It's a different matter, although there is definitely plausible motivation for absolute values every X deltas: query/update locality (mini-partition-level). You wouldn't want to transcode a huge number of values to access/modify a small subset.
Oh neat. I have some related unpublished SOTA results I want to release soon: PEF/BIC-like compression ratios, with faster boolean algebra than Roaring Bitsets.
By typical I imagined adoption within commonly-deployed TSDBs like Prometheus, InfluxDB, etc.
GB/GH are actually ideal targets for my code: both architectures integrate Neoverse V2 cores, the same core I developed for. They are superchips with 144/72 CPU cores respectively.
The perf numbers I shared are for one core, so multiply the numbers I gave by 144/72 to get expected throughput on GB/GH. As you (apparently?) have access to this hardware I'd sincerely appreciate if you could benchmark my code there and share the results.
The weirdness probably comes from heavy use of "SIMD intrinsics" (Googleable term). These are functions with a 1:1 correspondence to assembly instructions, used for processing multiple values per instruction.
If the data is already in GPU memory, yes. Otherwise you'll be limited by the DRAM<->VRAM memory bottleneck.
When we consider that delta coding (and family), are typically applied as one step in a series of CPU-first transforms and benefit from L1-3 caching we find CPU throughput pulls far-ahead of GPU-based approaches for typical workloads.
This note holds for all GPU-based approaches, not just PTX.
I'm assuming you're referring to BFM/EXTR? NEON absolutely improves here.
The core I developed on (Neoverse V2) has 4 SIMD ports and 6 scalar integer ports, however only 2 of those scalar ports support multicycle integer operations like the insert variant of BFM (essential for scalar packing).
More importantly, NEON progresses 16 elements per instruction instead of 1.
Oh nice! Axion C4A and Graviton4 use the same core (Neoverse V2), so the performance difference is due to factors like clock speed and power management.
I used a geometric mean to calculate the top-line "86 GB/s" for NEON pack/unpack; so that's 91 GB/s for the C4A repro. Probably going to leave the title unmodified.
From the working set size and knowledge of hardware cache behaviour. Whenever you access data from memory not already in-cache it's copied four times: to L3, L2, L1 and to CPU registers. As you access data, the hardware evicts old cache entries to make space for it.
If you loop through an array once, and then iterate through it again you can figure out where it will be cached based on the array size.
If you have an array of numbers with a known upper-bound, such as enums with 8 possible values (representable with 3 bits), and a memory-bound operation on those numbers eg, for (int i; i < n; i++) if (user_category[i] == 0) filtered.push_pack(i), which is common in data warehouses, using my code can more than 2x performance by allowing more efficient usage of the DRAM<->CPU bus.
Not having (1 << k) - 1 as a single instruction sucks when it HAS to be in a hot loop, but you can usually hoist this to the loop prolougue: my stuff uses dummy inline assembly hints to force compilers to do this `asm volatile("" : "+w"(m));`.
I personally think calibrating ARM's ISA on smaller VL was a good choice: you get much better IPC. You also have an almost-complete absence of support for 8-bit elements with x86 ISAs, so elements per instruction is tied. And NEON kind-of-ish makes up for its small VL with multi-register TBL/TBX and LDP/STP.
Also: AVX512 is just as non-existent on clients as SVE2; although not really relevant for the server-side targets I'm optimising for (mostly OLAP).
Good work, wish I saw it earlier as it overlaps with a lot of my recent work. I'm actually planning to release new SOTAs on zigzag/delta/delta-of-delta/xor-with-previous coding next week. Some areas the work doesn't give enough attention to (IMO): register pressure, kernel fusion, cache locality (wrt multi-pass). They also fudge a lot of the numbers and comparisons eg, pitching themselves against Parquet (storage-optimised) when Arrow (compute-optimised) is the most-comparable tech and obvious target to beat. They definitely improve on current best work, but only by a modest margin.
I'm also skeptical of the "unified" paradigm: performance improvements are often realised by stepping away from generalisation and exploiting the specifics of a given problem; under a unified paradigm there's definite room for improvement vs Arrow, but that's very unlikely to bring you all the way to theoretically optimal performance.
Nice article! I personally find the ARM ISA far more cohesive than x86's: far less historical quirks. I also really appreciate the ubiquity of support for 8-bit elements in ARM and the absence of SMT (make performance much more predictable).
Thank you so much for attempting a reproduction! (I posted this on Reddit and most commenters didn't even click the link)
For the baseline you need SIMDe headers: https://github.com/simd-everywhere/simde/tree/master/simde. These alias x86 intrinsics to ARM intrinsics. The baseline is based on the previous State-of-The-Art (https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2137) which happens to be x86-based; using SIMDe to compile was the highest-integrity way I could think of to compare with the previous SOTA.
Note: M1 chips specifically have notoriously bad small-shift performance, so the benchmark results will be very bad on your machine. M3 partially fixed this, M4 fixed completely. My primary target is server-class rather than consumer-class hardware so I'm not too worried about this.
The benchmark results were cpy-pasted from the terminal. The README prose was AI generated from my rough notes (I'm confident when communicating with other experts/researchers, but less-so with communication to a general audience).
Oh, it's $0.36/hour for salamander. the equivalent on gcp (n1-16-standard with attached k80) is $0.29/hour. though as you said, Salamander is easier to get started with (just 1 click after signing up!)
Yes, I built it this way to reduce financial risk on my side; for instance, if lots of users suddenly sign up and the AWS bill is really big.
I'm making the onboarding process smoother this weekend, so after Monday all new users will have $1 of free compute credits they can use to verify the service works as advertised before handing over any card details.
P4Synth takes a (mathematical) group of functions/expressions and finds strong candidate implementations for every class in that group. Then, as long we have a fast (expression → class) mapping for that group we can use the generated solutions as a database embedded within the compiler for automated expression replacement (or mapping from expressions to circuits/technology).
Vivado/Quartus (FPGA) technology mapping and LLVM's InstCombine stage are essentially this. InstCombine's pattern library is partially human-authored, partially generated by search tools; it lists ~30k subexpression replacements like a+a+a → a*3. P4Synth competes with those search tools. For hard function classes, existing methods might take weeks on a supercomputer: P4Synth speeds that up exponentially.
It only solves a narrow toy problem right now (4-input boolean functions), but I believe the technique could scale with modifications (like A* style prioritisation over signal-set novelty and implementation score).