Towards Establishing Guaranteed Error for Learned Database Operations
Sepanta Zeighami, Cyrus Shahabi
Abstract
Machine learning models have demonstrated substantial performance enhancements over non-learned alternatives in various fundamental data management operations, including indexing (locating items in an array), cardinality estimation (estimating the number of matching records in a database), and range-sum estimation (estimating aggregate attribute values for query-matched records). However, real-world systems frequently favor less efficient non-learned methods due to their ability to offer (worst-case) error guarantees - an aspect where learned approaches often fall short. The primary objective of these guarantees is to ensure system reliability, ensuring that the chosen approach consistently delivers the desired level of accuracy across all databases. In this paper, we embark on the first theoretical study of such guarantees for learned methods, presenting the necessary conditions for such guarantees to hold when using machine learning to perform indexing, cardinality estimation and range-sum estimation. Specifically, we present the first known lower bounds on the model size required to achieve the desired accuracy for these three key database operations. Our results bound the required model size for given average and worst-case errors in performing database operations, serving as the first theoretical guidelines governing how model size must change based on data size to be able to guarantee an accuracy level. More broadly, our established guarantees pave the way for the broader adoption and integration of learned models into real-world systems.
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 c1824d2c-5bfa-43f1-a2ac-c7bbaf9c97edCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on11
- ALEX: An Updatable Adaptive Learned IndexJialin Ding, Umar Farooq Minhas, Jia Yu, Chi Wang et al.SIGMOD 2020 · 274 citations
- Deep Unsupervised Cardinality EstimationZongheng Yang, Eric Liang, Amog Kamsetty, Chenggang Wu et al.VLDB 2020 · 206 citations
- The PGM-index: a fully-dynamic compressed learned index with provable worst-case boundsPaolo Ferragina, Giorgio VinciguerraVLDB 2020 · 178 citations
- NeuroCard: One Cardinality Estimator for All TablesZongheng Yang, Amog Kamsetty, Sifei Luan, Eric Liang et al.VLDB 2021 · 138 citations
- Flow-Loss: Learning Cardinality Estimates That MatterParimarjan Negi, Ryan Marcus, Andreas Kipf, Hongzi Mao et al.VLDB 2021 · 102 citations
Related papers
- Prediction Intervals for Learned Cardinality Estimation: An Experimental EvaluationSaravanan Thirumuruganathan, Suraj Shetiya, Nick Koudas, Gautam DasICDE 2022 · 7 citations
- Are We Ready For Learned Cardinality Estimation?Xiaoying Wang, Changbo Qu, Weiyuan Wu, Jiannan Wang et al.VLDB 2021 · 156 citations
- On Distribution Dependent Sub-Logarithmic Query Time of Learned IndexingSepanta Zeighami, Cyrus ShahabiICML 2023 · 20 citations
- One Seed, Two Birds: A Unified Learned Structure for Exact and Approximate CountingYingze Li, Hongzhi Wang, Xianglong LiuSIGMOD 2024 · 4 citations
- DeepDB: Learn from Data, not from Queries!Benjamin Hilprecht, Andreas Schmidt, Moritz Kulessa, Alejandro Molina et al.VLDB 2020 · 154 citations
