Turbo-Charging SPJ Query Plans with Learned Physical Join Operator Selections
Axel Hertzschuch, Claudio Hartmann, Dirk Habich, Wolfgang Lehner
Abstract
The optimization of select-project-join (SPJ) queries entails two major challenges: (i) finding a good join order and (ii) selecting the best-fitting physical join operator for each single join within the chosen join order. Previous work mainly focuses on the computation of a good join order, but leaves open to which extent the physical join operator selection accounts for plan quality. Our analysis using different query optimizers indicates that physical join operator selection is crucial and that none of the investigated query optimizers reaches the full potential of optimal operator selections. To unlock this potential, we propose TONIC , a novel cardinality estimation-free extension for generic SPJ query optimizers in this paper. TONIC follows a learning-based approach and revises operator decisions for arbitrary join paths based on learned query feedback. To continuously capture and reuse optimal operator selections, we introduce a lightweight yet powerful Query Execution Plan Synopsis ( QEP-S ). In comparison to related work, TONIC enables transparent planning decisions with consistent performance improvements. Using two real-life benchmarks, we demonstrate that extending existing optimizers with TONIC substantially reduces query response times with a cumulative speedup of up to 2.8x.
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 papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on6
- Bao: Making Learned Query Optimization PracticalRyan Marcus, Parimarjan Negi, Hongzi Mao, Nesime Tatbul et al.SIGMOD 2021 · 242 citations
- DeepDB: Learn from Data, not from Queries!Benjamin Hilprecht, Andreas Schmidt, Moritz Kulessa, Alejandro Molina et al.VLDB 2020 · 154 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
- COMPASS: Online Sketch-based Query Optimization for In-Memory DatabasesYesdaulet Izenov, Asoke Datta, Florin Rusu, Jun Hyung ShinSIGMOD 2021 · 34 citations
Related papers
- LEAP: A Low-cost Spark SQL Query Optimizer using Pairwise ComparisonJunhao Ye, Jiahui Li, Lu Chen, Yuren Mao et al.VLDB 2025 · 2 citations
- How Good are Learned Cost Models, Really? Insights from Query Optimization TasksRoman Heinrich, Manisha Luthra, Johannes Wehrstein, Harald Kornmayer et al.SIGMOD 2025 · 13 citations
- GenJoin: Conditional Generative Plan-to-Plan Query Optimizer that Learns from Subplan HintsPavel Sulimov, Claude Lehmann, Kurt StockingerSIGMOD 2026 · 3 citations
- Cost-based or Learning-based? A Hybrid Query Optimizer for Query Plan SelectionXiang Yu, Chengliang Chai, Guoliang Li, Jiabin LiuVLDB 2022 · 82 citations
- LOGER: A Learned Optimizer towards Generating Efficient and Robust Query Execution PlansTianyi Chen, Jun Gao, Hedui Chen, Yaofeng TuVLDB 2023 · 54 citations
