Is Your Learned Query Optimizer Behaving As You Expect? A Machine Learning Perspective

September 04, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Claude Lehmann, Pavel Sulimov, Kurt Stockinger arXiv ID 2309.01551 Category cs.DB: Databases Citations 12 Venue Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
The current boom of learned query optimizers (LQO) can be explained not only by the general continuous improvement of deep learning (DL) methods but also by the straightforward formulation of a query optimization problem (QOP) as a machine learning (ML) one. The idea is often to replace dynamic programming approaches, widespread for solving QOP, with more powerful methods such as reinforcement learning. However, such a rapid "game change" in the field of QOP could not pass without consequences - other parts of the ML pipeline, except for predictive model development, have large improvement potential. For instance, different LQOs introduce their own restrictions on training data generation from queries, use an arbitrary train/validation approach, and evaluate on a voluntary split of benchmark queries. In this paper, we attempt to standardize the ML pipeline for evaluating LQOs by introducing a new end-to-end benchmarking framework. Additionally, we guide the reader through each data science stage in the ML pipeline and provide novel insights from the machine learning perspective, considering the specifics of QOP. Finally, we perform a rigorous evaluation of existing LQOs, showing that PostgreSQL outperforms these LQOs in almost all experiments depending on the train/test splits.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Databases

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted