Sharing Queries with Nonequivalent User-defined Aggregate Functions
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
This article presents Sharing User-Defined Aggregate Function (SUDAF), a declarative framework that allows users to write User-defined Aggregate Functions (UDAFs) as mathematical expressions and use them in Structured Query Language statements. SUDAF rewrites partial aggregates of UDAFs using built-in aggregate functions and supports efficient dynamic caching and reusing of partial aggregates. Our experiments show that rewriting UDAFs using built-in functions can significantly speed up queries with UDAFs, and the proposed sharing approach can yield up to two orders of magnitude improvement in query execution time. The article studies also an extension of SUDAF to support sharing partial results between arbitrary queries with UDAFs. We show a connection with the problem of query rewriting using views and introduce a new class of rewritings, called SUDAF rewritings, which enables to use views that have aggregate functions different from the ones used in the input query. We investigate the underlying rewriting-checking and rewriting-existing problem. Our main technical result is a reduction of these problems to, respectively, rewriting-checking and rewriting-existing of the so-called aggregate candidates , a class of rewritings that has been deeply investigated in the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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