mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

No DBA? No regret! Multi-armed bandits for index tuning of analytical and HTAP workloads with provable guarantees

arXiv 2108.10130 ↗First posted 23 Aug 2021cs.DB cs.LGcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automating physical database design has remained a long-term interest in database research due to substantial performance gains afforded by optimised structures. Despite significant progress, a majority of today's commercial solutions are highly manual, requiring offline invocation by database administrators (DBAs) who are expected to identify and supply representative training workloads. Even the latest advancements like query stores provide only limited support for dynamic environments. This status quo is untenable: identifying representative static workloads is no longer realistic; and physical design tools remain susceptible to the query optimiser's cost misestimates. Furthermore, modern application environments such as hybrid transactional and analytical processing (HTAP) systems render analytical modelling next to impossible. We propose a self-driving approach to online index selection that eschews the DBA and query optimiser, and instead learns the benefits of viable structures through strategic exploration and direct performance observation. We view the problem as one of sequential decision making under uncertainty, specifically within the bandit learning setting. Multi-armed bandits balance exploration and exploitation to provably guarantee average performance that converges to policies that are optimal with perfect hindsight. Our comprehensive empirical evaluation against a state-of-the-art commercial tuning tool demonstrates up to 75% speed-up on shifting and ad-hoc workloads and up to 28% speed-up on static workloads in analytical processing environments. In HTAP environments, our solution provides up to 59% speed-up on shifting and 51% speed-up on static workloads. Furthermore, our bandit framework outperforms deep reinforcement learning (RL) in terms of convergence speed and performance volatility (providing up to 58% speed-up).

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 82 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2021.

Builds on

11 of 82 references.

References · 11

  1. 2015Deep Reinforcement Learning with Double Q-learningcited by 1,704
  2. 2017The Case for Learned Index Structurescited by 188
  3. 2018Learned Cardinalities: Estimating Correlated Joins with Deep Learningcited by 64
  4. 2020Bao: Learning to Steer Query Optimizerscited by 62
  5. 2018FITing-Tree: A Data-aware Index Structurecited by 30
  6. 2019SkinnerDB: Regret-Bounded Query Evaluation via Reinforcement Learningcited by 17
  7. 2021A Survey on Advancing the DBMS Query Optimizer: Cardinality Estimation, Cost Model, and Plan Enumerationcited by 14
  8. 2018The Case for Automatic Database Administration using Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 8
  9. 2018Towards a Hands-Free Query Optimizer through Deep Learningcited by 8
  10. 2018Cuttlefish: A Lightweight Primitive for Adaptive Query Processingcited by 4
  11. 2019A Note on Bounding Regret of the C2UCB Contextual Combinatorial Banditcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

4 papers.