Systematic evaluation benchmarks accuracy of cardinality estimation methods for data warehousing, suggesting optimal approaches.
Cardinality estimation remains one of the most critical yet error-prone components of query optimization in modern data warehouses. Recent advances in machine learning have produced a diverse family of learned cardinality estimators that demonstrate substantial accuracy improvements on standard benchmarks. Yet existing evaluations predominantly rely on third-normal-form schemas, leaving their effectiveness on star and snowflake schemas—the backbone of analytical data warehousing—largely unexplored. This paper presents a systematic empirical evaluation of seven representative learned cardinality estimation methods spanning three paradigmatic categories: query-driven, data-driven, and hybrid approaches. All methods are benchmarked against the PostgreSQL histogram-based estimator on three complementary datasets: TPC-DS with its native snowflake schema, STATS-CEB with real-world relational data, and IMDB/JOB as the established cross-study reference. The evaluation encompasses estimation accuracy measured by Q-Error and P-Error, inference latency, training cost, model compactness, end-to-end query execution time, and robustness under simulated ETL batch insertions. Results indicate that hybrid methods, particularly FactorJoin, achieve the strongest accuracy on data warehouse workloads with a median Q-Error of 1.74 on TPC-DS, while data-driven methods such as FLAT and BayesCard offer a favorable balance between accuracy and inference speed. BayesCard and FactorJoin exhibit the highest resilience to data updates, with median Q-Error increasing by fewer than 1.5 points after a 50% data insertion. These findings provide actionable guidance for practitioners seeking to deploy learned cardinality estimation in production data warehouse environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: