From XML schema to relations: a cost-based approach to XML storage
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
As Web applications manipulate an increasing amount of XML, there is a growing interest in storing XML data in relational databases. Due to the mismatch between the complexity of XML's tree structure and the simplicity of flat relational tables, there are many ways to store the same document in an RDBMS, and a number of heuristic techniques have been proposed. These techniques typically define fixed mappings and do not take application characteristics into account. However, a fixed mapping is unlikely to work well for all possible applications. In contrast, LegoDB is a cost-based XML storage mapping engine that explores a space of possible XML-to-relational mappings and selects the best mapping for a given application. LegoDB leverages current XML and relational technologies: (1) it models the target application with an XML Schema, XML data statistics, and an XQuery workload; (2) the space of configurations is generated through XML-Schema rewritings; and (3) the best among the derived configurations is selected using cost estimates obtained through a standard relational optimizer. We describe the LegoDB storage engine and provide experimental results that demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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