Do Developers Refactor Data Access Code? An Empirical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers often refactor code to improve the maintainability and comprehension of the software. There are many studies on refactoring activities in traditional software systems. However, refactoring in data-intensive systems is not well explored. Understanding the refactoring practices of developers is important to develop efficient tool support.We conducted a longitudinal study of refactoring activities in data access classes using 12 data-intensive subject systems. We investigated the prevalence and evolution of refactorings and the association of refactorings with data access smells. We also conducted a manual analysis of over 378 samples of data access refactoring instances to identify the functionalities of the code that are targeted by such refactorings. Our results show that (1) data access refactorings are prevalent and different in type. \textit{Rename variable} is the most prevalent data access refactoring. (2) The prevalence and type of refactorings vary as systems evolve in time. (3) Most data access refactorings target codes that implement data fetching and insertion. (4) Data access refactorings do not generally touch SQL queries. Overall, the results show that data access refactorings focus on improving the code quality but not the underlying data access operations. Hence, more work is needed from the research community on providing awareness and support to practitioners on the benefits of addressing data access smells with refactorings.
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 | 0.030 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".