Papers › How Good are Learned Cost Models, Really? Insights from Query Optimization Tasks
How Good are Learned Cost Models, Really? Insights from Query Optimization Tasks
Roman Heinrich, Manisha Luthra, Johannes Wehrstein, Harald Kornmayer, Carsten Binnig
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
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.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections