Abstract
Query driven cardinality estimation models learn from a historical log of queries. They are lightweight, having low storage requirements, fast inference and training, and are easily adaptable for any kind of query. Unfortunately, such models can suffer unpredictably bad performance under workload drift, i.e., if the query pattern or data changes. This makes them unreliable and hard to deploy. We analyze the reasons why models become unpredictable due to workload drift, and introduce modifications to the query representation and neural network training techniques to make query-driven models robust to the effects of workload drift. First, we emulate workload drift in queries involving some unseen tables or columns by randomly masking out some table or column features during training. This forces the model to make predictions with missing query information, relying more on robust features based on up-to-date DBMS statistics that are useful even when query or data drift happens. Second, we introduce join bitmaps, which extends sampling-based features to be consistent across joins using ideas from sideways information passing. Finally, we show how both of these ideas can be adapted to handle data updates. We show significantly greater generalization than past works across different workloads and databases. For instance, a model trained with our techniques on a simple workload (JOBLight-train), with 40 k synthetically generated queries of at most 3 tables each, is able to generalize to the much more complex Join Order Benchmark, which include queries with up to 16 tables, and improve query runtimes by 2× over PostgreSQL. We show similar robustness results with data updates, and across other workloads. We discuss the situations where we expect, and see, improvements, as well as more challenging workload drift scenarios where these techniques do not improve much over PostgreSQL. However, even in the most challenging scenarios, our models never perform worse than PostgreSQL, while standard query driven models can get much worse than PostgreSQL.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.