MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413755882 · doi:10.14778/3718057.3718059

Esc: An Early-Stopping Checker for Budget-Aware Index Tuning

2025· article· en· W4413755882 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoying Wang, Wentao Wu, Vivek Narasayya, Surajit Chaudhuri

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)Computer scienceModel checkingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Index tuning is a time-consuming process. One major performance bottleneck in existing index tuning systems is the large amount of "what-if" query optimizer calls that estimate the cost of a given pair of query and index configuration without materializing the indexes. There has been recent work on budget-aware index tuning that limits the amount of what-if calls allowed in index tuning. Existing budget-aware index tuning algorithms, however, typically make fast progress early on in terms of the best configuration found but slow down when more and more what-if calls are allocated. This observation of "diminishing return" on index quality leads us to introduce early stopping for budget-aware index tuning, where user specifies a threshold on the tolerable loss of index quality and we stop index tuning if the projected loss with the remaining budget is below the threshold. We further propose Esc, a low-overhead early-stopping checker that realizes this new functionality. Experimental evaluation on top of both industrial benchmarks and real customer workloads demonstrates that Esc can significantly reduce the number of what-if calls made during budget-aware index tuning while incurring little or zero improvement loss and little extra computational overhead compared to the overall index tuning time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207