Robust Plan Evaluation Based on Approximate Probabilistic Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Query optimizers in RDBMSs search for execution plans expected to be optimal for given queries. They use parameter estimates, often inaccurate, and make assumptions that may not hold in practice. Consequently, they may select plans that are suboptimal at runtime, if estimates and assumptions are not valid. Therefore, they do not sufficiently support robust query optimization. Using ML to improve data systems has shown promising results for query optimization. Inspired by this, we propose Robust Query Optimizer, (Roq), a holistic framework based on a risk-aware learning approach. Roq includes a novel formalization of the notion of robustness in the context of query optimization and a principled approach for its quantification and measurement based on approximate probabilistic ML. It also includes novel strategies and algorithms for query plan evaluation and selection. Roq includes a novel learned cost model that is designed to predict the cost of query execution and the associated risks and performs query optimization accordingly. We demonstrate that Roq provides significant improvements in robust query optimization compared with the state-of-the-art.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".