On TPC-H 10GB, a state-of-the-art learned rewriter cuts mean execution time from 69.84s to 37.57s — a 46% win. On DSB 10GB, the same rewriter takes 32.62s to 31.93s — a 2.1% non-event. The gap isn’t query difficulty; it’s whether the benchmark is in the rewriter’s training distribution. “Rule-based systems are stable and reliable” is often a benchmark artifact, not an engineering fact.
DBPlanBench gets GPT-5 to deliver a 4.78× geometric-mean speedup on DataFusion TPC-H SF10 by letting the model rewrite physical plans directly. I read its sql_optimization_prompts.py end to end — 120 lines, 30 of methodology, 90 of contract. That ratio is the most transferable thing in the paper.
On TPC-H 10GB, asking GPT-4o to rewrite SQL takes mean execution time from 78.81s down to 74.92s — almost nothing. Swap in an open 14B model, feed it plans, add a reward, fine-tune once, and the same workload drops to 29.67s. Whether LLMs can help SQL rewriting is not a question about model strength; it’s a question about whether you’re willing to give the model the signals it actually needs.
Databricks and UPenn put an LLM agent to work as an offline join-order tuner and got P90 latency down 41% / geomean 1.288× speedup on JOB’s 113 queries — beating even perfect cardinality estimates. From the trenches of an open-source query engine, here is what that result does and does not prove.