Adaptive rank-aware query optimization in relational databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rank-aware query processing has emerged as a key requirement in modern applications. In these applications, efficient and adaptive evaluation of top- k queries is an integral part of the application semantics. In this article, we introduce a rank-aware query optimization framework that fully integrates rank-join operators into relational query engines. The framework is based on extending the System R dynamic programming algorithm in both enumeration and pruning. We define ranking as an interesting physical property that triggers the generation of rank-aware query plans. Unlike traditional join operators, optimizing for rank-join operators depends on estimating the input cardinality of these operators. We introduce a probabilistic model for estimating the input cardinality, and hence the cost of a rank-join operator. To our knowledge, this is the first effort in estimating the needed input size for optimal rank aggregation algorithms. Costing ranking plans is key to the full integration of rank-join operators in real-world query processing engines.Since optimal execution strategies picked by static query optimizers lose their optimality due to estimation errors and unexpected changes in the computing environment, we introduce several adaptive execution strategies for top- k queries that respond to these unexpected changes and costing errors. Our reactive reoptimization techniques change the execution plan at runtime to significantly enhance the performance of running queries. Since top- k query plans are usually pipelined and maintain a complex ranking state, altering the execution strategy of a running ranking query is an important and challenging task.We conduct an extensive experimental study to evaluate the performance of the proposed framework. The experimental results are twofold: (1) we show the effectiveness of our cost-based approach of integrating ranking plans in dynamic programming cost-based optimizers; and (2) we show a significant speedup (up to 300%) when using our adaptive execution of ranking plans over the state-of-the-art mid-query reoptimization strategies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".