Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Jiale Lao, Immanuel Trummer
Published
Mar 2, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
15/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
45% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Domain Experts
Signals refreshed
Mar 2, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
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.
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.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts."
Domain Experts
Helpful for staffing comparability.
"Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by many experts.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.