Guiding Expert Database Tuning with Explainable AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern database systems, such as IBM Db2, rely on cost-based optimizers to improve workload performance. However, their decision-making processes are difficult to interpret. Tuning them for specific workloads remains challenging due to their complexity, numerous configuration options, and interaction with unique workload characteristics. Additionally, database systems increasingly rely on black-box machine learning models within the optimizer and automatic tuning tools. These black-box models lack interpretability, hindering expert trust and debugging. We propose GEX, a system that provides interpretable insights into database optimizer behavior using explainable AI techniques. We adapt XAI techniques for generating perturbation-based saliency maps from surrogate models to the domain of SQL queries. With GEX we propose a framework for how saliency scores can be used to guide experts in system tuning tasks such as statistical view creation, configuration parameter adjustment, and query rewrite. We demonstrate the ability of GEX to capture and communicate optimizer behaviour through experimental evaluation in these tasks using the TPC-DS benchmark and IBM Db2.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".