Benchmarking attribute cardinality maps for database systems using the tpc-d specifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benchmarking is an important phase in developing any new software technique because it helps to validate the underlying theory in the specific problem domain. But benchmarking of new software strategies is a very complex problem, because it is difficult (if not impossible) to test, validate and verify the results of the various schemes in completely different settings. This is even more true in the case of database systems because the benchmarking also depends on the types of queries presented to the databases used in the benchmarking experiments. Query optimization strategies in relational database systems rely on approximately estimating the query result sizes to minimize the response time for user-queries. Among the many query result size estimation techniques, the histogram-based techniques are by far the most commonly used ones in modern-day database systems. These techniques estimate the query result sizes by approximating the underlying data distributions, and, thus, are prone to estimation errors. In two recent works , we proposed (and thoroughly analyzed) two new forms of histogram-like techniques called the rectangular and trapezoidal attribute cardinality maps (ACM), respectively, that give much smaller estimation errors than the traditional equi-width and equi-depth histograms currently being used by many commercial database systems. This paper reports how the benchmarking of the Rectangular-ACM (R-ACM) and the Trapezoidal-ACM (T-ACM) for query optimization can be achieved. By conducting an extensive set of experiments using the acclaimed TPC-D benchmark queries and database , we demonstrate that these new ACM schemes are much more accurate than the traditional histograms for query result size estimation. Apart from demonstrating the power of the ACMs, this paper also shows how the TPC-D benchmarking can be achieved using a large synthetic database with many different patterns of synthetic queries, which are representative of a real-world business environment.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".