Both Ends Count! Just How Good are LLM Agents at "Text-to-Big SQL"?

Germán T. Eizaguirre, Lars Tissen, Marc Sánchez-Artigas · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

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

Text-to-SQL and Big Data are both extensively benchmarked fields, yet there is limited research that evaluates them jointly. In the real world, Text-to-SQL systems are often embedded with Big Data workflows, such as large-scale data processing or interactive data analytics. We refer to this as "Text-to-Big SQL". However, existing text-to-SQL benchmarks remain narrowly scoped and overlook the cost and performance implications that arise at scale. For instance, translation errors that are minor on small datasets lead to substantial cost and latency overheads as data scales, a relevant issue completely ignored by text-to-SQL metrics. In this paper, we overcome this overlooked challenge by introducing novel and representative metrics for evaluating Text-to-Big SQL. Our study focuses on production-level LLM agents, a database-agnostic system adaptable to diverse user needs. Via an extensive evaluation of frontier models, we show that text-to-SQL metrics are insufficient for Big Data. In contrast, our proposed text-to-Big SQL metrics accurately reflect execution efficiency, cost, and the impact of data scale. Furthermore, we provide LLM-specific insights, including fine-grained, cross-model comparisons of latency and cost.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
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

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • 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 35%

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.