Robust Query Optimization in the Era of Machine Learning: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Query optimizers are an essential component of database management systems (DBMSs) as they search for an execution plan that is expected to be optimal for a given query. However, they commonly use parameter estimates that are often inaccurate and make assumptions that may not hold in practice. Consequently, the optimizer may select sub-optimal execution plans at runtime, when these estimates and assumptions are not valid, which may result in poor query performance. Therefore, query optimizers do not adequately support the robustness of the database system. In this tutorial, we explore the notion of robustness in the context of query optimization, as well as how it is evaluated or even further supported. Firstly, we provide a comprehensive definition for the notion of robustness in this context that accounts for risks associated with execution plans and inaccurate parameter estimates as well as the limitations of the cost models. Next, we review the approaches proposed in the literature to address the issue of robustness, including techniques that rely on query re-optimization, discovering parameters, quantifying robustness, as well as recent techniques that employ machine learning. We focus on comparing traditional cost-model-based methods with modern ML-based techniques in terms of their ability to tackle the challenge of robustness in query optimization. Finally, we discuss the limitations and gaps in the current literature and provide some recommendations for future research directions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".