Several data warehouse and database providers have recently introduced extensions to SQL called AI Queries, enabling users to specify functions and conditions in SQL that are evaluated by LLMs, thereby broadening significantly the kinds of queries one can express over the combination of structured and unstructured data. LLMs offer remarkable semantic reasoning capabilities, making them an essential tool for complex and nuanced queries that blend structured and unstructured data. While extremely powerful, these AI queries can become prohibitively costly when invoked thousands of times. This paper provides an extensive evaluation of a recent AI query approximation approach that enables low cost analytics and database applications to benefit from AI queries. The approach delivers >100x cost and latency reduction for the semantic filter operator and also important gains for semantic ranking. The cost and performance gains come from utilizing cheap and accurate proxy models over embedding vectors. We show that despite the massive gains in latency and cost, these proxy models preserve accuracy and occasionally improve accuracy across various benchmark datasets, including the extended Amazon reviews benchmark that has 10M rows. We present an OLAP-friendly architecture within Google BigQuery for this approach for purely online (ad hoc) queries, and a low-latency HTAP database-friendly architecture in AlloyDB that could further improve the latency by moving the proxy model training offline. We present techniques that accelerate the proxy model training.
Figures & tables
Approach
Latency Improvement
Cost Savings
Online Proxy Model
329x
728x
Offline Proxy Model
991x
792x
Table 1. Latency and cost gains of lightweight proxy models on the query in Example 1.1 using a 10-million row table.
Metric / Data Size
Offline Proxy
Online Proxy
LLM
Accuracy
1115
0.99
0.98
0.96
Latency ↑
1115
634x
5.4x
1x
100K
632x
294x
1x
Table 2. Proxy models (Embedding + Logistic Regression) VS. LLM-based baseline performance and normalized latency improvement against the LLM baseline for AI.IF using Kaggle SPAM email classification dataset.
Figure 1. AI query execution plan construction with proxy model approximation process. We parse the AI query and extract semantic operators ( Oi ) along with the semantic queries/prompts ( Qi ), unstructured data columns ( Ci ). We apply proxy model approximation for each operator. Proxy models can be trained online with best known or default configurations, or prepared offline for known query patterns depending on the analytics database architectures (OLAP or HTAP). Adaptive proxy model selection between the proxy and LLM, based on automatic online model evaluation results, allows us to choose a cost-efficient and accurate execution strategy.
Dataset
Task
Domain
Relevancy
Table (rows)
Imbalance Ratio 1
Example Prompt
California Housing ( Pace and Barry, 1997 )
Text
Housing
Binary
20K
6.71
Location in Latitude & Longitude is near the ocean.
Amazon Reviews 10k ( Zhang et al., 2015 )
Text
eCommerce
Binary
10K
4.69
Reviews describe at least one issue with the context of the problem.
BBC News ( Greene and Cunningham, 2006 )
Topic
News
5 categories
2.2K
1.32
Classify new article into following categories (business / entertainment / politics / sport / tech)
IMDB Movie Reviews ( Maas et al., 2011 )
Sentiment
Movies
Binary
99K
1.10
Movie review is positive.
Amazon Polarity ( Zhang et al., 2015 )
Sentiment
eCommerce
Binary
400K
1.00
Review is positive.
Mental Health ( Ji et al., 2022 )
Sentiment
Health
Binary
51.6K
3.41
Mental health is anxiety.
Table 3. Classification benchmark datasets for AI.IF. For the evaluation of the semantic filter ( AI.IF ), datasets with multiple categories/labels ( Relevancy > Binary ) are used to pose a one-vs-rest semantic query (e.g., matching one specific category against all others).
Dataset
Task
Domain
Relevancy
Queries
Documents
Relevant Docs/Query
TREC-COVID ( Roberts et al., 2021 )
Bio-medical IR
Bio-medical
3-level
50
171K
493.5
TREC-DL-2022 ( Craswell et al., 2022 )
Ranking/IR
Misc.
4-level
500
369K
189.3
FIQA-2018 ( Maia et al., 2018 )
Bio-medical IR
Bio-medical
Binary
648
57K
2.6
SCIDOCS ( Cohan et al., 2020 )
Argument retrieval
Misc.
Binary
1000
25K
4.9
SciFact ( Wadden et al., 2020 )
Fact checking
Scientific
Binary
300
5K
1.1
HellaSwag 1 ( Zellers et al., 2019 )
Commonsense reasoning
Daily life
Binary
200
800
1.0
Table 4. Information Retrieval (IR) benchmark datasets for AI.RANK. These datasets are designed to test the performance of relevant document retrieval and are typically characterized by heavy class imbalance, where only a handful of relevant documents exist per query within corpora that can contain hundreds of thousands or even millions of documents.
Dataset
Labels
Per-label Prompt (Binary)
Macro F1 Proxy
Macro F1 LLM
Relative Acc. 1
California Housing
1
Location in Latitude & Longitude belongs to Southern California.
0.953
0.953
1.000
California Housing
1
Location in Latitude & Longitude is near the ocean.
0.344
0.354
0.971
Amazon Reviews 10k
2
Review is {sentiment label}
0.860
0.739
1.163
BBC News
5
News Content describes news in {news topic label} sector
0.830
0.823
1.008
IMDB Movie Reviews
2
Movie review is {sentiment label}
0.940
0.950
0.989
Amazon Polarity
2
Review is {sentiment label}
0.965
0.959
1.005
Table 5. Macro F1 and relative accuracy of the proxy vs. LLM baseline for semantic filtering. For multi-label datasets, results are averaged over one-vs-rest binary classification tasks.
On-The-Fly
Pre-Computed
Table Size
Cost ↑
Latency ↑
Cost ↑
Latency ↑
10,000
2x
1.3x
9x
1.6x
100,000
2.5x
3x
81x
6x
1,000,000
2.5x
5x
422x
30x
10,000,000
2.5x
5x
728x
320x
Table 6. Cost and latency improvement of online proxy model approximation VS. the LLM baseline, with (On-the-Fly) and without (Pre-Computed) embeddings, tested using Amazon Polarity.
Table Size
Cost ↑
Latency ↑
10,000
9x
111x
100,000
81x
1,000,000
422x
10,000,000
728x
Table 7. Cost and latency improvement of offline proxy model approximation VS. the LLM baseline, tested using Amazon Polarity. Offline training includes the same processing (vCPU), labeling and embedding costs as in Table 6 per the same train sample size.
Figure 2. Relative wall-clock time of each step of the proxy model optimization with pre-computed embeddings. Only the sampling and prediction steps scale with the input relation size. The fraction of time spent doing prediction does not increase between 1m and 10m rows because BigQuery is able to use more parallelism as the amount of data increases.
Figure 3. Proxy model performance (nDCG@10 on online training sample) for rubric-based ranking on TREC-DL-2022. The online Proxy performs better after labeling >120 samples; Adaptive Proxy relies on LLM until the Proxy becomes as good as the baseline.
Re-Ranker
LLM
Proxy
FIQA-2018
0.432 ( ± 0.363)
0.0703 ( ± 0.107)
0.0304 ( ± 0.027)
SciFact
0.746 ( ± 0.368)
0.508 ( ± 0.416)
0.0098 ( ± 0.009)
SCIDOCS
0.251 ( ± 0.267)
0.107 ( ± 0.151)
0.0185 ( ± 0.0469)
TREC-DL-2022
0.419 ( ± 0.245)
0.537 ( ± 0.164)
0.446 ( ± 0.241)
TREC-COVID
0.738 ( ± 0.232)
0.551 ( ± 0.167)
0.535 ( ± 0.215)
HellaSwag
0.617 ( ± 0.252)
0.247 ( ± 0.306)
0.134 ( ± 0.251)
Table 8. Semantic ranking performance (nDCG@10) on the IR benchmark datasets from Table 4 . We report the average nDCG@10 over all queries ( ± 1-std). TREC-DL-2022 ranks items by 4-level scoring rubric, for which LLM and its Proxy perform better than Re-Ranker.
Re-Ranker
LLM
Proxy
Cost
0.025×
2.5×
1×
Latency
0.11×
1.1×
1×
Table 9. Semantic ranking cost and latency comparison (1x for Proxy) for ranking 500 candidate documents. Proxy requires labeling 200 documents with LLM for training.
Figure 4. Impact of sampling strategies on training data imbalance ratios, measured across various datasets of varying degrees of dataset characteristics: imbalance ratio ( ρ ), for classification benchmark datasets (a)(b); Relevant docuemtns per query ( γ ) / the number of corpus documents, for IR benchmark datasets (c)(d).
Random
Top-K
AL (Stratified)
1×
43761×
51639×
Table 10. Latency overhead multipliers (1 × for Random) for sampling 1000 sample instances from the Toxic Conversations dataset with 52K rows.
Figure 5. Impact of different imbalanced label training techniques, as described in Section 4.2 .
Balanced
Downsampled
Bootstrapped
Oversampled
1.30×
1.41×
2.46×
3.07×
Table 11. Latency overhead multipliers (1 × for imbalanced training) across different imbalanced training techniques, with simulated imbalanced ratio of 10.0
Figure 6. Impact of embedding model and dimensionality on proxy model classification performance. Note that Gecko ( text-embedding-005 ) and Gemma ( embeddinggemma-300m ( Google, 2025 ) ) support embedding dimension size up to 768, and Gemini ( gemini-embedding-001 ) supports up to 3072.
Model
Dmax
Latency (sec)
Cost 1 ($)
Size (MB)
Gemma
768
1x
1x
10.35
Gecko
768
1.81x
18.1x
10.35
Gemini
3072
4.18x
27.6x
41.41
1 Cost is computed based on Gemini embedding model pricing ( Google Cloud, 2025c ) for Gecko and Gemini, and the cost of running a high CPU VM (8 vCPU, 16 GB RAM) for Gemma.
Table 12. Embedding generation cost comparison for Tweet Sentiment test split (3534 rows)–this should increases linearly with the number of rows, since we are processing a fixed number of rows (20) per generation request.
Figure 7. Embedding distinctiveness illustrated by PCA visualization (X-axis is PC1, Y-axis is PC2) and separability scores across various benchmark datasets with Gemma and Gecko embedding models, dimension D=768
Metric
LR
SVM
RF
XGB
F1 Score (default)
0.867
0.861
0.841
0.858
F1 Score (tuned)
0.867
0.861
0.836
0.848
Training Latency
1x
49.84x
1.42x
3.18x
Table 13. Normalized training latency to the LR training latency (1x) and tuned model performance on Tweet Sentiment dataset.
Table 14. Proxy and LLM performance (F1-Score) comparison across data slices of the California Housing dataset. This comparison highlights the difference between training on a global sample versus training specifically on sliced data.
Dataset
LLM (P / R)
Approx (P / R) by Sample Size
1,000
4,000
8,000
BBC News
0.94 / 0.94
0.95 / 0.95
—
—
DBpedia
0.98 / 0.98
0.83 / 0.65
0.94 / 0.95
0.96 / 0.96
BBC News has 5 categories, DBpedia ( The Devastator, 2022 ) has 14 categories.
With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), many database systems introduced semantic operators that enabled analytical queries over unstructured data (e.g. text, images, videos). Semantic operators typically incur high inference costs and latencies making semantic (AI) SQL queries challenging to apply on large scale datasets. At the same time, their semantic nature leads database engines to treat them as black boxes, making AISQL queries difficult to optimize. In this paper, we introduce Larch, a framework for optimizing the execution of semantic filters in AI SQL queries. Larch was inspired by two key observations: i) the high latency of semantic operators leaves significant room for computationally-heavy runtime optimization techniques, ii) unstructured data are typically accompanied by semantic information in the form of embeddings allowing for efficient semantic comparisons between AI_FILTER prompts and data values. Based on these two key observations, we present two Larch variants: Larch-A2C and Larch-Sel. Larch-A2C encodes arbitrary semantic filters expression tree using an embedding-augmented Gated Graph Neural Network and formulates the filter evaluation order as a Markov decision process. In contrast, Larch-Sel leverages a supervised learning model to predict filter selectivities, subsequently applying dynamic programming to find a near-optimal evaluation order for each input row. Evaluated across diverse real-world datasets and comprehensive synthetic workloads, both Larch variants always outperform existing semantic filter optimization techniques in terms of token usage. Our results demonstrate that Larch is robust across diverse workloads, reducing total token cost overhead by 3x-19x compared to Palimpzest and Quest.
Language model systems built around proprietary APIs often operate on a token-based cost model. This becomes prohibitively expensive in the context of large databases, where LM-enhanced relational operators can incur costs exceeding $10,000 for a single set of experiments, hindering thorough research and practical deployment. In this paper, we demonstrate that quantized, open-weight models running locally on just 16GB of VRAM can match or exceed the accuracy of closed-source counterparts at lower latency and a fraction of the price, challenging the prevailing assumption that closed-source LM APIs are necessary for effective LM-database integration. We present and analyze the key system optimizations required to efficiently deploy these open-weight models within an LM-DB system. By integrating these local models into the BlendSQL v0.1.0 framework, we demonstrate a 390x reduction in overall costs and 3.8x reduction in latency compared to a proprietary LM API. We make our code available at https://github.com/CapitalOne-Research/play-by-the-type-rules/tree/main/sembench.
LLM analytics agents are evaluated on SQL syntax accuracy, but production failures look different: questions with two valid business definitions, questions the warehouse cannot answer, deprecated columns after a schema change, and queries that execute successfully while returning the wrong business number. No execution-match metric can score them. This paper introduces WarehouseReliabilityBench, 400 frozen tasks over two synthetic warehouses in which roughly half the correct responses are a clarification, an abstention or a refusal, with pinned denominators and a pre-registered paired bootstrap fixing each claim verb before the numbers existed. QueryProof, a 7B agent, uses rules derived from a semantic layer and physical catalog to determine its behaviour, and gates every answer on deterministic post-execution checks. On an 80-task synthetic test split evaluated once, QueryProof outperforms a direct-prompted 32B baseline by +0.237 [+0.112, +0.375] Business Truth Rate at 71.0% lower cost per correct answer; against a cost-matched few-shot baseline the accuracy gain holds but the cost difference does not resolve. This compares systems rather than model sizes: the 32B baseline receives none of the scaffolding. False success falls from 0.754 to 0.351 of returned answers, and no wrong number was returned on an answerable task (0 of 24), though 13 answers went to questions requiring clarification or abstention. Removing the routing layer changes little (0.562 against 0.537), so the result does not depend on escalation. Routing tuned on validation over-abstains on test, and the fitted confidence model loses to the heuristic it replaced. Resampling template families rather than tasks widens both accuracy intervals to include zero, so the effect's direction is better supported than its magnitude. The gain tracks the deterministic layer, though no component ablation was run.