GEM-4C 558 -4%
GPT-61S 555 -3.8%
CL-SN55 553 -3.8%
CL-OP55 551 -4%
GPT-61TERR 547 -3.5%
GEM-4CM 546 -4%
CL-OP55EH 542 -3.9%
GPT-61SOLXH 541 -3.6%
GPT-61SOLH 527 -3.7%
CL-SN55XH 523 -3.5%
GEM-4CL 520 -3.9%
GPT-61TERRXH 507 -3.4%
CL-OP55H 506 -4%
GPT-61SOLM 500 -3.5%
KIMI-K31P 499 -3.5%
GEM-4AR 498 -3.9%
GPT-61TERRH 490 -3.2%
CL-OP55M 483 -3.6%
MUSE-WONDFUL 479 -3.8%
CL-SN55H 467 -3.3%
CL-HK55 463 -2.9%
GPT-61TERRM 462 -3.1%
GPT-6A 451 -4.7%
MUSE-WOND 451 -3.6%
CL-HK55XH 450 -3%
GPT-6ASTRXH 440 -4.8%
GROK-47 440 -3.1%
GROK-47H 438 -2.9%
GPT-6ASTRH 437 -4.8%
DSK-V-340615 436 -2.9%
QWEN-38X 428 -2.9%
GPT-61SOLL 423 -3.2%
GLM-53 420 -3%
MIMO-V26P 420 -2.6%
CL-HK55H 419 -2.8%
LING-31F1019 417 -2.6%
GEM-38F 416 -2.8%
GPT-6ASTRM 415 -4.6%
MMAX-M31F 414 -2.8%
GEM-38FM 412 -2.8%
GPT-61TERRNO 411 -2.8%
GROK-47L 410 -2.8%
DSK-V-3E48BD 410 -2.6%
GPT-6L 407 -2.6%
GLM-53F 407 -2.6%
STEP-5 405 -2.6%
CL-FABL51XH 403 -4.7%
GPT-61TERRL 403 -2.9%
MIMO-V26F 401 -2.4%
CL-FABL51 399 -4.5%
CL-SN55M 395 -2.9%
CL-OP55L 393 -3.4%
MIST-LARG4 390 -2.7%
CL-FABL51H 386 -4.5%
CL-HK55M 386 -2.3%
GPT-6LUNAXH 377 -2.6%
MUSE-SPAROPE 375 -2.6%
MIST-LARG4M 371 -2.4%
DSK-V4P 365 -2.4%
GPT-6LUNAH 365 -2.1%
GLM-53L 364 -2.4%
CL-SN55L 362 -2.7%
GEM-38FL 361 -2.4%
GPT-6ASTRL 359 -4.5%
CL-FABL51M 359 -4.5%
QWEN-827B 349 -2.2%
CL-HK55L 347 -2%
MMAX-M3 345 -2%
GPT-6LUNAM 344 -2.3%
DSK-V-02811D 344 -2%
K2-HORI375BA 342 -2%
REFL-BEAM 338 -2%
QWEN-827BM 332 -1.8%
CL-FABL51L 329 -4.4%
QWEN-827BL 320 -1.8%
NEMO-35SUPEV 313 -1.9%
INKL 295 -1.7%
NVID-NEMO3UL 295 -1.3%
GEM-35FLITE 295 -1.3%
GPT-6LUNAL 287 -1.4%
GPT-6LUNANON 286 -1%
NANB-333B 285 -2.7%
QWEN-827BNON 282 -1.4%
COMM-APLUS 266 -1.1%
MUSE-GLIM 263 -1.1%
NEMO-35LIGH 261 -0.8%
GRAN-428B 258 -0.8%
MIST-SMAL4 252 -0.4%
INKL-SM 235 -2.5%
GEMM-431B 225 —
GEMM-4E4B 225 —
GEMM-4E4BNON 225 —
LING-30TINY 225 —
MINI-33B 225 —
NORT-MCODE 225 —
NOVA-MICR 225 —
NVID--ADE3B4 225 —
QWEN-54B 225 —
QWEN-54BNONR 225 —
TINY-AYAGLOB 225 —
GEM-4C 558 -4%
GPT-61S 555 -3.8%
CL-SN55 553 -3.8%
CL-OP55 551 -4%
GPT-61TERR 547 -3.5%
GEM-4CM 546 -4%
CL-OP55EH 542 -3.9%
GPT-61SOLXH 541 -3.6%
GPT-61SOLH 527 -3.7%
CL-SN55XH 523 -3.5%
GEM-4CL 520 -3.9%
GPT-61TERRXH 507 -3.4%
CL-OP55H 506 -4%
GPT-61SOLM 500 -3.5%
KIMI-K31P 499 -3.5%
GEM-4AR 498 -3.9%
GPT-61TERRH 490 -3.2%
CL-OP55M 483 -3.6%
MUSE-WONDFUL 479 -3.8%
CL-SN55H 467 -3.3%
CL-HK55 463 -2.9%
GPT-61TERRM 462 -3.1%
GPT-6A 451 -4.7%
MUSE-WOND 451 -3.6%
CL-HK55XH 450 -3%
GPT-6ASTRXH 440 -4.8%
GROK-47 440 -3.1%
GROK-47H 438 -2.9%
GPT-6ASTRH 437 -4.8%
DSK-V-340615 436 -2.9%
QWEN-38X 428 -2.9%
GPT-61SOLL 423 -3.2%
GLM-53 420 -3%
MIMO-V26P 420 -2.6%
CL-HK55H 419 -2.8%
LING-31F1019 417 -2.6%
GEM-38F 416 -2.8%
GPT-6ASTRM 415 -4.6%
MMAX-M31F 414 -2.8%
GEM-38FM 412 -2.8%
GPT-61TERRNO 411 -2.8%
GROK-47L 410 -2.8%
DSK-V-3E48BD 410 -2.6%
GPT-6L 407 -2.6%
GLM-53F 407 -2.6%
STEP-5 405 -2.6%
CL-FABL51XH 403 -4.7%
GPT-61TERRL 403 -2.9%
MIMO-V26F 401 -2.4%
CL-FABL51 399 -4.5%
CL-SN55M 395 -2.9%
CL-OP55L 393 -3.4%
MIST-LARG4 390 -2.7%
CL-FABL51H 386 -4.5%
CL-HK55M 386 -2.3%
GPT-6LUNAXH 377 -2.6%
MUSE-SPAROPE 375 -2.6%
MIST-LARG4M 371 -2.4%
DSK-V4P 365 -2.4%
GPT-6LUNAH 365 -2.1%
GLM-53L 364 -2.4%
CL-SN55L 362 -2.7%
GEM-38FL 361 -2.4%
GPT-6ASTRL 359 -4.5%
CL-FABL51M 359 -4.5%
QWEN-827B 349 -2.2%
CL-HK55L 347 -2%
MMAX-M3 345 -2%
GPT-6LUNAM 344 -2.3%
DSK-V-02811D 344 -2%
K2-HORI375BA 342 -2%
REFL-BEAM 338 -2%
QWEN-827BM 332 -1.8%
CL-FABL51L 329 -4.4%
QWEN-827BL 320 -1.8%
NEMO-35SUPEV 313 -1.9%
INKL 295 -1.7%
NVID-NEMO3UL 295 -1.3%
GEM-35FLITE 295 -1.3%
GPT-6LUNAL 287 -1.4%
GPT-6LUNANON 286 -1%
NANB-333B 285 -2.7%
QWEN-827BNON 282 -1.4%
COMM-APLUS 266 -1.1%
MUSE-GLIM 263 -1.1%
NEMO-35LIGH 261 -0.8%
GRAN-428B 258 -0.8%
MIST-SMAL4 252 -0.4%
INKL-SM 235 -2.5%
GEMM-431B 225 —
GEMM-4E4B 225 —
GEMM-4E4BNON 225 —
LING-30TINY 225 —
MINI-33B 225 —
NORT-MCODE 225 —
NOVA-MICR 225 —
NVID--ADE3B4 225 —
QWEN-54B 225 —
QWEN-54BNONR 225 —
TINY-AYAGLOB 225 —

Delayed ticker data. Last calculated 5 Nov 2026, 11:04 pm Sydney time.

← Back to feed

A 4B Model Trained with RL Produces Query Plans 81% Faster Than Postgres on Join-Heavy Workloads

A researcher has published the results of post-training a 4-billion-parameter open-weights model to produce Postgres query plans that beat the database’s native optimizer on join-heavy workloads. The model was trained using supervised fine-tuning followed by agentic reinforcement learning, with query execution latency as the reward signal.

The headline result: a 1.81x geometric mean speedup per query across 113 join-heavy test queries sourced from the IMDb dataset — 81% faster on average. Summed across all 113 queries, total workload latency dropped 44.7%. The starting point was stark: the base model could not produce a valid plan for 99 of the 113 queries before training.

Why query optimization is hard (and measurable)

Database query optimization, specifically join ordering, is NP-hard. Postgres’s query planner makes heuristic choices about which tables to join in what order, using statistics about row counts and selectivity. These estimates are imperfect, and on complex joins with many tables they compound into plans that are significantly slower than optimal.

What makes this a tractable RL target is that the reward signal is unambiguous: execution time. Unlike tasks where verifying a correct output is itself difficult, a faster query plan produces a measurably shorter wall-clock time. This is the same property that makes coding benchmarks amenable to RL — a test suite either passes or it does not.

Training setup

The work combined supervised fine-tuning on labeled plan examples with a custom GRPO (Group Relative Policy Optimization) variant adapted for noisy environments. Query execution time is inherently noisy: Linux page cache state, concurrent load, and I/O patterns all affect individual measurements. The researcher built a measurement rig across four Postgres containers to minimize cache contention across concurrent runs.

Rollout generation was split across hardware: a rented 2xH100 node ran vLLM and the training loop, while local machines hosted the Postgres evaluation containers. Off-policy distillation was applied across roughly 500 GPT-6 Astra agent trajectories.

Scope and limitations

The benchmark is join-heavy queries from the IMDb dataset — a standard query optimization research corpus. The 113 queries were specifically selected to stress join ordering decisions. The result does not generalize automatically to all query types; queries without complex joins are less likely to benefit. The Postgres planner performs well on simpler workloads where cardinality estimates are accurate.

The model also operates at inference time inside the query planning loop, adding latency to plan selection itself. For workloads where queries execute once and plan overhead is amortized across millions of executions, this matters less. For short-lived ad-hoc queries, the planning overhead could offset gains.

The broader signal

The work is a clean demonstration that small specialized models can match or exceed handcrafted heuristics on problems with a verifiable reward signal. Database query optimization has decades of expert engineering behind it. A 4B model with a few weeks of RL closed the gap and opened it in favor of the learned approach — at least on the tested workload. The full write-up and code are at rohanbansal.com/qorl.