Sub-optimal Join Order Identification with L1-error
Yesdaulet Izenov, Asoke Datta, Brian Tsan, Florin Rusu
Abstract
Q-error -- the standard metric for quantifying the error of individual cardinality estimates -- has been widely adopted as a surrogate for query plan optimality in recent work on learning-based cardinality estimation. However, the only result connecting Q-error with plan optimality is an upper-bound on the cost of the worst possible query plan computed from a set of cardinality estimates---there is no connection between Q-error and the real plans generated by standard query optimizers. Therefore, in order to identify sub-optimal query plans, we propose a learning-based method having as its main feature a novel measure called L1-error. Similar to Q-error, L1-error requires complete knowledge of true cardinalities and estimates for all the sub-plans of a query plan. Unlike Q-error, which considers the estimates independently, L1-error is defined as a permutation distance between true cardinalities and estimates for all the sub-plans having the same number of joins. Moreover, L1-error takes into account errors relative to the magnitude of their cardinalities and gives larger weight to small multi-way joins. Our experimental results confirm that, when L1-error is integrated into a standard decision tree classifier, it leads to the accurate identification of sub-optimal plans across four different benchmarks. This accuracy can be further improved by combining L1-error with Q-error into a composite feature that can be computed without overhead from the same data.
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 3477270f-4ca8-487c-9bea-42db1dcb3c63Builds on8
- Deep Unsupervised Cardinality EstimationZongheng Yang, Eric Liang, Amog Kamsetty, Chenggang Wu et al.VLDB 2020 · 206 citations
- Cardinality Estimation in DBMS: A Comprehensive Benchmark EvaluationYuxing Han, Ziniu Wu, Peizhi Wu, Rong Zhu et al.VLDB 2022 · 169 citations
- Are We Ready For Learned Cardinality Estimation?Xiaoying Wang, Changbo Qu, Weiyuan Wu, Jiannan Wang et al.VLDB 2021 · 156 citations
- NeuroCard: One Cardinality Estimator for All TablesZongheng Yang, Amog Kamsetty, Sifei Luan, Eric Liang et al.VLDB 2021 · 138 citations
- FLAT: Fast, Lightweight and Accurate Method for Cardinality EstimationRong Zhu, Ziniu Wu, Yuxing Han, Kai Zeng et al.VLDB 2021 · 120 citations
Related papers
- Flow-Loss: Learning Cardinality Estimates That MatterParimarjan Negi, Ryan Marcus, Andreas Kipf, Hongzi Mao et al.VLDB 2021 · 102 citations
- LpBound: Pessimistic Cardinality Estimation Using ℓp-Norms of Degree SequencesHaozhe Zhang, Christoph Mayer, Mahmoud Abo Khamis, Dan Olteanu et al.SIGMOD 2025 · 7 citations
- Speeding Up End-to-end Query Execution via Learning-based Progressive Cardinality EstimationFang Wang, Xiao Yan, Man Lung Yiu, Shuai Li et al.SIGMOD 2023 · 24 citations
- Learned Cardinality Estimation: An In-depth StudyKyoungmin Kim, Jisung Jung, In Seo, Wook-Shin Han et al.SIGMOD 2022 · 51 citations
- ASM: Harmonizing Autoregressive Model, Sampling, and Multi-dimensional Statistics Merging for Cardinality EstimationKyoungmin Kim, Sangoh Lee, Injung Kim, Wook-Shin HanSIGMOD 2024 · 18 citations
