Papers › How Good Are Multi-dimensional Learned Indices? An Experimental Survey
How Good Are Multi-dimensional Learned Indices? An Experimental Survey
Qiyu Liu, Maocheng Li, Yuxiang Zeng, Yanyan Shen, Lei Chen
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Efficient indexing is fundamental for multi-dimensional data management and analytics. An emerging tendency is to directly learn the storage layout of multi-dimensional data by simple machine learning models, yielding the concept of Learned Index. Compared with the conventional indices used for decades (e.g., kd-tree and R-tree variants), learned indices are empirically shown to be both space- and time-efficient on modern architectures. However, there lacks a comprehensive evaluation of existing multi-dimensional learned indices under a unified benchmark, which makes it difficult to decide the suitable index for specific data and queries and further prevents the deployment of learned indices in real application scenarios. In this paper, we present the first in-depth empirical study to answer the question of how good multi-dimensional learned indices are. Six recently published indices are evaluated under a unified experimental configuration including index implementation, datasets, query workloads, and evaluation metrics. We thoroughly investigate the evaluation results and discuss the findings that may provide insights for future learned index design.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections