Thread

1. Someone · 1789588667 · focus · HN ↗

   > I paid ~$800 to rent a 2x H100 SXM node from Lambda for ~95 hours, and ~$400 in OpenAI API fees to generate the Astra trajectory demonstrations.

   > a tiny 4B model went from not being able to understand the harness it was wrapped in, to achieving a 1.81x geometric mean speedup and a summed latency decrease of 44.7% across a workload of join-heavy SQL queries

   I can’t find it in the article (may have skimmed it too much), but I suspect they didn’t include those ~95 hours in the benchmark numbers.

   I think all database vendors know their query optimizers could do much better if they could afford to spend lots of time to derive query plans.

   ⇒ this may be useful for some workloads, but even then, can you afford to spend hours every now and then to update your 4B model to ensure it still picks a good query plan?

   1. dvt · 1789589599 · focus · HN ↗

      > ⇒ this may be useful for some workloads, but even then, can you afford to spend hours every now and then to update your 4B model to ensure it still picks a good query plan?

      I think this would be likely comparable to a scheduled backup, so I think it would be an acceptable maintenance window. However, deterministic algorithms would likely beat re-training (or re-fine-tuning) the model. For example, one could analyze actual distributions or whatever (instead of assuming uniform), and then some plans would automatically be eliminated.

      Imo a good thought experiment is to look at places that are hyper-optimized, like compilers. Would LLMs bring anything to the table (architecturally or performance-wise) to a piece of software that has been carefully crafted for decades? (Methinks no.)

      1. btown · 1789592896 · focus · HN ↗

         The Postgres query planner has had to operate, for those same decades, in a much more realtime-sensitive and restricted environment than compilers. It can only draw its conclusions from summary statistics on tables in isolation, not on their relationships with each other (and even less so when filters are involved). For many cases this is fine! For many others it isn't.
      2. codebje · 1789599411 · focus · HN ↗

         There's a good number of heuristic choices in compilation where, maybe, you could get more optimal outcomes with machine learning - but at the cost of compilation resources, both time and space, and possibly determinism too.

         As an example, register allocation is graph colouring, and thus NP complete; a model for producing an allocation plan is learning heuristics that might look at more features in combination than the ones hand-crafted into the compiler. An LLM for the job might do better than a more focused model like a GNN, due to sheer size, the effectiveness of transformers, or magic. But it probably won't do an overall better job than the handcrafted heuristics, because those handcrafted heuristics also tend to compile very, very fast with a small memory footprint, and can be debugged (more) easily when they go wrong.

      3. FusionGaming · 1789615433 · focus · HN ↗

         I think there's a future in which LLMs are used for auto vectorization
      4. Sesse__ · 1789642055 · focus · HN ↗

         > For example, one could analyze _actual_ distributions or whatever (instead of assuming uniform)

         Postgres keeps histograms (including N most common values) for all columns; it does not blindly assume uniform distributions. (Presumably an LLM would have access to the same histograms.)

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.