Guided automated learning for query workload re-optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Query optimization is a hallmark of database systems. When an SQL query runs more expensively than is viable or warranted, determination of the performance issues is usually performed manually in consultation with experts through the analysis of query's execution plan (QEP). However, this is an excessively time consuming, human error-prone, and costly process. GALO is a novel system that automates this process. The tool automatically learns recurring problem patterns in query plans over workloads in an offline learning phase, to build a knowledge base of plan-rewrite remedies. It then uses the knowledge base online to re-optimize queries often quite drastically. GALO's knowledge base is built on RDF and SPARQL, W3C graph database standards, which is well suited for manipulating and querying over SQL query plans, which are graphs themselves. GALO acts as a third-tier of re-optimization, after query rewrite and cost-based optimization, as a query plan rewrite . For generality, the context of knowledge base problem patterns, including table and column names, is abstracted with canonical symbol labels. Since the knowledge base is not tied to the context of supplied QEPs, table and column names are matched automatically during the re-optimization phase. Thus, problem patterns learned over a particular query workload can be applied in other query workloads. GALO's knowledge base is also an invaluable tool for database experts to debug query performance issues by tracking to known issues and solutions as well as refining the optimizer with new tuned techniques by the development team. We demonstrate an experimental study of the effectiveness of our techniques over synthetic TPC-DS and real IBM client query workloads.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".