mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

DBA-Bench: A Production-Fidelity Benchmark for LLM-Based Database Operations Agents

arXiv 2607.22165 ↗First posted 24 Jul 2026cs.DB cs.AI cs.CLcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-based database agents show promise, but differing task scopes, testbeds, and metrics hinder comparison. We identify four gaps between evaluation and production operations: live-environment fidelity (multi-turn read-write interaction with a running database); observation-space scale and complexity (causal diagnosis across thousands of time series, business logs, and concurrent activity); solution-space openness (multiple remediations with different operational trade-offs); and scenario complexity and coverage (faults cascading across internal mechanisms and operational domains). We present DBA-Bench, a benchmark addressing these gaps through production fidelity, outcome-first evaluation, and controlled scenario reproducibility. It uses instrumented PostgreSQL environments with active workloads, persistent state, and multi-source observations; defines success by measurable recovery or fault elimination under safety constraints; and restores snapshots with scenario-specific checks before each run. The benchmark contains 106 scenarios across seven task domains, with two public difficulty labels based on reference-path diagnostic depth and environmental complexity. We evaluate nine baseline groups, including six foundation-model systems, two GPT-5.5-backed database agents, and a Human DBA reference. Across 848 automated runs, Diagnosis, Outcome, and Safe Pass rates are 32.7%, 19.6%, and 12.4%; the best automated baseline reaches 17.9% Safe Pass versus 93.4% for the Human DBA reference. Automated Safe Pass falls from 19.6% on Easy scenarios to 7.6% on Hard scenarios, underscoring the difficulty of safe end-to-end remediation.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2026.

Builds on

7 of 38 references.

References · 7

  1. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
  2. 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 229
  3. 2023Recommending Root-Cause and Mitigation Steps for Cloud Incidents using Large Language Modelscited by 38
  4. 2023GPTuner: A Manual-Reading Database Tuning System via GPT-Guided Bayesian Optimizationcited by 28
  5. 2024Automatic Database Configuration Debugging using Retrieval-Augmented Language Modelscited by 12
  6. 2025DBAIOps: A Reasoning LLM-Enhanced Database Operation and Maintenance System using Knowledge Graphscited by 7
  7. 2025RCRank: Multimodal Ranking of Root Causes of Slow Queries in Cloud Database Systemscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Efficient Benchmarking in Production: A Study of an Evolving LLM Agent
  2. 2026ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditions
  3. 2026PLSQLBench: Benchmarking LLM Systems for Executable Procedural Database Programming
  4. 2026The Hidden Footprint: Making Storage a First-Class Metric for LLM Agent Evaluation
  5. 2026DataClawEval: A Benchmark for Data Engineering Agents in Real Industrial Harness
  6. 2026Trace Integrity for LLM Data Agents: A Vision for Auditable Structured Reasoning in Real-World Systems
  7. 2026When Errors Become Narratives: A Longitudinal Taxonomy of Silent Failures in a Production LLM Agent Runtime
  8. 2025Rethinking Agentic Workflows: Evaluating Inference-Based Test-Time Scaling Strategies in Text2SQL Tasks