How Good are Learned Cost Models, Really? Insights from Query Optimization Tasks
Roman Heinrich, Manisha Luthra, Johannes Wehrstein, Harald Kornmayer, Carsten Binnig
Abstract
Traditionally, query optimizers rely on cost models to choose the best execution plan from several candidates, making precise cost estimates critical for efficient query execution. In recent years, cost models based on machine learning have been proposed to overcome the weaknesses of traditional cost models. While these models have been shown to provide better prediction accuracy, only limited efforts have been made to investigate how well Learned Cost Models (LCMs) actually perform in query optimization and how they affect overall query performance. In this paper, we address this by a systematic study evaluating LCMs on three of the core query optimization tasks: join ordering, access path selection, and physical operator selection . In our study, we compare seven state-of-the-art LCMs to a traditional cost model and, surprisingly, find that the traditional model often still outperforms LCMs in these tasks. We conclude by highlighting major takeaways and recommendations to guide future research toward making LCMs more effective for query optimization.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers6
- GRACEFUL: A Learned Cost Estimator for UDFsJohannes Wehrstein, Tiemo Bang, Roman Heinrich, Carsten BinnigICDE 2025 · 2 citations
- Reqo: A Comprehensive Learning-Based Cost Model for Robust and Explainable Query OptimizationBaoming Chang, Amin Kamali, Verena KantereSIGMOD 2026 · 1 citation
- OBELISK: Efficient Offline Query Planning with Bayesian Optimization-Informed Language Model ReasoningZhicheng Pan, Wenwen Sun, Yuanjia Zhang, Terence Purcell et al.VLDB 2026
- SafeLoad: Efficient Admission Control Framework for Identifying Memory-Overloading Queries in Cloud Data WarehousesYifan Wu, Yuhan Li, Zhenhua Wang, Zhongle Xie et al.VLDB 2026
- Vodka: Rethink Benchmarking Philosophy in HTAP SystemsZirui Hu, Siyang Weng, Zhicheng Pan, Rong Zhang et al.VLDB 2026
Builds on25
- An End-to-End Learning-based Cost EstimatorJi Sun, Guoliang LiVLDB 2020 · 251 citations
- Bao: Making Learned Query Optimization PracticalRyan Marcus, Parimarjan Negi, Hongzi Mao, Nesime Tatbul et al.SIGMOD 2021 · 242 citations
- Deep Unsupervised Cardinality EstimationZongheng Yang, Eric Liang, Amog Kamsetty, Chenggang Wu et al.VLDB 2020 · 206 citations
- Are We Ready For Learned Cardinality Estimation?Xiaoying Wang, Changbo Qu, Weiyuan Wu, Jiannan Wang et al.VLDB 2021 · 156 citations
- DeepDB: Learn from Data, not from Queries!Benjamin Hilprecht, Andreas Schmidt, Moritz Kulessa, Alejandro Molina et al.VLDB 2020 · 154 citations
Related papers
- Robust Plan Evaluation based on Approximate Probabilistic Machine LearningAmin Kamali, Verena Kantere, Calisto Zuzarte, Vincent CorvinelliVLDB 2025 · 1 citation
- LEAP: A Low-cost Spark SQL Query Optimizer using Pairwise ComparisonJunhao Ye, Jiahui Li, Lu Chen, Yuren Mao et al.VLDB 2025 · 2 citations
- Lero: A Learning-to-Rank Query OptimizerRong Zhu, Wei Chen, Bolin Ding, Xingguang Chen et al.VLDB 2023 · 102 citations
- A Comparative Study and Component Analysis of Query Plan Representation Techniques in ML4DB StudiesYue Zhao, Zhaodonghui Li, Gao CongVLDB 2024 · 19 citations
- Cost-based or Learning-based? A Hybrid Query Optimizer for Query Plan SelectionXiang Yu, Chengliang Chai, Guoliang Li, Jiabin LiuVLDB 2022 · 82 citations
