GenDB: The Next Generation of Query Processing -- Synthesized, Not Engineered

Jiale Lao, Immanuel Trummer · Mar 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Coding Math Multi Agent

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts. However, new techniques and user requirements evolve rapidly, and existing systems often cannot keep pace. At the same time, these systems are difficult to extend due to their internal complexity, and developing new systems requires substantial engineering effort and cost. In this paper, we argue that recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) are starting to shape the next generation of query processing systems. We propose using LLMs to synthesize execution code for each incoming query, instead of continuously building, extending, and maintaining complex query processing engines. As a proof of concept, we present GenDB, an LLM-powered agentic system that generates instance-optimized and customized query execution code tailored to specific data, workloads, and hardware resources. We implemented an early prototype of GenDB that uses Claude Code Agent as the underlying component in the multi-agent system, and we evaluate it on OLAP workloads. We use queries from the well-known TPC-H benchmark and also construct a new benchmark designed to reduce potential data leakage from LLM training data. We compare GenDB with state-of-the-art query engines, including DuckDB, Umbra, MonetDB, ClickHouse, and PostgreSQL. GenDB achieves significantly better performance than these systems. Finally, we discuss the current limitations of GenDB and outline future extensions and related research challenges.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

15/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.