A Cost-Based Range Estimation for Mapping Top-k Selection Queries over Relational Databases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding efficient methods for supporting top-k relational queries has received significant attention in academic research. One of the approaches in the recent literature is query-mapping, in which top-k queries are mapped (translated) into equivalent range queries that relational database systems (RDBMSs) normally support. This approach combines the advantage of simplicity as well as practicality by avoiding the need for modifications to the query engine, or specialized data structures or indexing techniques to handle top-k queries separately. However, existing methods following this approach fall short of adequately modeling the problem environment and providing consistent results. In this article, the authors propose a cost-based range estimation model for the query-mapping approach. They provide a methodology for trading-off relevant query execution cost components and mapping a top-k query into a cost-optimal range query for efficient execution. Their experiments on real world and synthetic data sets show that the proposed strategy not only avoids the need to calibrate workloads on specific database contents, but also performs at least as well as prior methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it