A Unified Model for Cardinality Estimation by Learning from Data and Queries via Sum-Product Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardinality estimation is a fundamental component in database systems, crucial for generating efficient execution plans. Despite advancements in learning-based cardinality estimation, existing methods may struggle to simultaneously optimize the key criteria: estimation accuracy, inference time, and storage overhead, limiting their practical applicability in real-world database environments. This paper introduces QSPN, a unified model that integrates both data distribution and query workload. QSPN achieves high estimation accuracy by modeling data distribution using the simple yet effective Sum-Product Network (SPN) structure. To ensure low inference time and reduce storage overhead, QSPN further partitions columns based on query access patterns. We formalize QSPN as a tree-based structure that extends SPNs by introducing two new node types: QProduct and QSplit. This paper studies the research challenges of developing efficient algorithms for the offline construction and online computation of QSPN. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate QSPN in both single-table and multi-table cardinality estimation settings. The experimental results have demonstrated that QSPN achieves superior and robust performance on the three key criteria, compared with state-of-the-art approaches.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".