Presenters

Source

🚀 Learned Indexes & PostgreSQL: A Challenging Integration Journey 💡

PostgreSQL is a powerhouse of a database, relied on by countless applications. But as workloads evolve – especially those driven by machine learning and AI – traditional indexing methods sometimes struggle to keep pace. This presentation explored a fascinating, and ultimately complex, journey: attempting to integrate Microsoft’s learned index structure, “Alex,” directly into PostgreSQL. While the initial ambition was high, the experience highlighted some critical architectural realities and paved the way for exciting, more targeted solutions. Let’s dive in!

The Promise of Learned Indexes 🎯

Learned indexes, like Alex, represent a new breed of indexing. Instead of relying on fixed data structures, they learn patterns in your data to potentially accelerate search operations. Think of it as a database understanding what you’re likely to search for and preparing accordingly. The idea of bringing this power into PostgreSQL was incredibly appealing – a potential performance boost for increasingly complex queries.

🚧 The Roadblock: Direct Integration Challenges 🚧

The team’s initial goal was straightforward: integrate Alex directly into PostgreSQL’s query execution framework. Unfortunately, the reality proved far more challenging. After thorough benchmarking and analysis, the team concluded that direct integration, in its current form, simply doesn’t offer a performance advantage. The overhead of the machine learning model, combined with the complexity of integrating it into PostgreSQL’s architecture, outweighed any potential gains.

Here’s a breakdown of the significant hurdles they encountered:

  • Query Planner Mismatch: PostgreSQL’s query planner assumes a certain behavior from indexes. Learned indexes operate differently, requiring substantial adjustments to the cost model – a crucial component for query optimization.
  • Lack of Dynamic Fallback: Imagine Alex makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong. PostgreSQL’s architecture doesn’t easily allow for a graceful fallback to a traditional B-tree index.
  • Statistics Complexity: Maintaining accurate statistics is vital for the query planner to make informed decisions. For learned indexes, this is significantly more complex.
  • Model Drift: Machine learning models aren’t static. They can degrade over time (model drift), requiring ongoing monitoring and correction – adding another layer of complexity.
  • Performance Overhead: Running the machine learning model itself consumes resources. This overhead can negate any potential performance benefits.
  • Real-time Index Updates: Keeping the index updated in real-time as data changes presents challenges to maintaining both consistency and performance.

🔄 A Strategic Pivot: Niche Use Cases & Future Directions 🌐

Undeterred by these challenges, the team shifted their focus. Recognizing the limitations of a full integration, they’re now exploring more targeted, temporary, in-memory solutions. Think of it as finding the right place for learned indexes to shine.

Here are some of the exciting avenues they’re pursuing:

  • PG Parquet Integration: Imagine significantly speeding up data imports and exports to/from Parquet files by generating temporary indexes for faster joins.
  • Temporary Indexing for CTEs/Materialized Views/Temp Tables: Boosting the performance of complex queries involving temporary data structures.
  • Log/Time Series Ingestion: Accelerating data processing during ingestion by creating temporary indexes.
  • Machine Learning Feature Stores: Speeding up feature engineering on large datasets – a critical step in many ML pipelines.
  • PG Vector Acceleration: Reducing the search space for approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) operations, a common task in recommendation systems and similarity searches.
  • Developing a Generic Framework: Creating a more versatile framework to simplify the integration of various learned indexes into PostgreSQL, rather than being tied to just one implementation.
  • Model Lifecycle Management: Addressing the challenges of training, deploying, and monitoring machine learning models within a PostgreSQL environment – a crucial piece for long-term success.
  • Custom Hardware: Exploring the potential of specialized hardware to accelerate machine learning model execution – a longer-term, but potentially game-changing, direction.

💾 Key Takeaways & What’s Next 🛠️

This journey highlights the complexities of integrating cutting-edge technologies into established systems. Here’s what we learned:

  • Architectural Mismatch Matters: Integrating in-memory indexes into a disk-first database like PostgreSQL presents significant architectural challenges.
  • Data Durability is Paramount: PostgreSQL’s commitment to data durability limits the ability to compromise on integrity for performance gains.
  • Niche Solutions Can Shine: Temporary, in-memory indexes can be incredibly valuable in specific scenarios where speed is critical and data persistence is less of a concern.
  • The IAM Framework is a Constraint: PostgreSQL’s Index Access Method (IAM) framework represents a constraint on index integration.

While direct integration of learned indexes into PostgreSQL proved difficult, the team’s work has paved the way for exciting new possibilities. By focusing on niche use cases and building a more generic framework, we can unlock the potential of learned indexes to enhance PostgreSQL’s performance and capabilities. 🦾

Want to learn more?

  • Consider exploring alternative learned index implementations.
  • Think about how custom hardware could accelerate machine learning model execution.
  • And most importantly, remember that even challenging integrations can lead to valuable insights and innovative solutions! 🚀

Appendix