RAG Strategies for Natural Language-Based SQL Query and REST API Call Generation
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Enterprise software systems commonly expose functionality through relational databases and REST APIs, requiring users to understand schemas, endpoints, and parameters. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can support natural language interfaces by grounding large language models (LLMs) in enterprise-specific documentation. We evaluate three training-free RAG configurations - Standard RAG, Relevance Filtering RAG, and Iterative Retrieval RAG - for SQL query generation, REST API call generation, and a combined task requiring routing between both operation types. Using SAP Transactional Banking, we constructed an expert-reviewed dataset with mock execution screening and compared the configurations under database-only, API-only, and mixed-documentation settings. Without retrieval, exact match accuracy is 0% across all tasks, whereas retrieval achieves mock execution success of up to 79.30% and component match accuracy of up to 78.86%. In the combined task, Iterative Retrieval RAG achieves higher exact match accuracy than Standard RAG (10.29% vs. 7.45%), with similar mock execution success (68.93% vs. 67.10%). However, for REST API call generation under mixed documentation, Iterative Retrieval RAG achieves lower mock execution success than Standard RAG (50.53% vs. 75.79%). Overall, retrieval-control strategies show task- and metric-dependent behavior under mixed-documentation settings.
Results and benchmarks
Enterprise software systems commonly expose functionality through relational databases and REST APIs, requiring users to understand schemas, endpoints, and parameters.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Transformer, Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Information Retrieval
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.