★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Open research. Global perspectives.
submission_tajiir@theamericanjournals.com Publisher Home ↗
Articles OPEN ACCESS

Developing an Adaptive Optimization Framework that Improves Query Performance and Reduces Computational Costs as Enterprise Data Workloads Evolve

Pritesh Gehlot
Sr Architect, USA
DOI Crossref DOI 10.37547/tajiir/Volume08Issue11-04
tajiir 2026
VOL. 8 / NO. 11 NOVEMBER
FULL TEXT PP. 26-37
PDF

View all articles in this issue ↗

VOLUME 8
ISSUE 11
YEAR 2026
PAGES 26-37
RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Abstract

Enterprise database workloads change over time, making it difficult to maintain query performance while lowering computing costs. This study introduces an adaptive query optimization system that combines Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD)-based workload change detection, rule-based workload categorization, cost-aware decision-making, and safety-gated optimization. The system detects changes in workload distributions, assesses prospective optimization candidates, and determines if predicted execution-time reductions are worth the cost. Candidates undergo safety inspections and controlled evaluations before their potential advantages are evaluated for adoption. The proposed framework was evaluated using the Join Order Benchmark (JOB), which is based on IMDb relational data and was deployed in a local PostgreSQL environment. The experimental evaluation assessed workload-specific query execution performance under baseline, fixed-index, and adaptive optimization strategies, using 12 benchmark queries and 5 rounds of controlled policy assessment. A PostgreSQL 18.6 database with 1,029,842 entries was used to test the framework. The approach reduced execution times by an average of 5.97% and net costs by an average of 1.55% throughout five rounds of controlled policy assessment. However, optimization efficiency varies across workload profiles, suggesting that quicker query execution does not necessarily equate to reduced total costs. The existing configuration was maintained in the shadow-controller evaluation when the estimated benefits of transitioning were insufficient. These results highlight the significance of workload-aware judgments, configuration-cost analysis, and safety measures in adaptive database optimization. Future study will look at longer workload traces and larger database setups.

RESEARCH TOPICS

Keywords

Adaptive Query Optimization Workload Change Detection Jensen–Shannon Divergence Cost-Aware Optimization

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
SOURCES & SCHOLARSHIP

References

  1. M. R. C. Mukkolakkal, “HierarchicalCDN: Federated Edge Intelligence with Metadata-Driven Cache Optimization for Live Streaming,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Mod. Technol., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 140, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.38124/ijsrmt.v5i1.1235.
  2. A. S. Mahajan, Decision-First Enterprises: Transforming Business Through Intelligent Data Systems, 1st ed. Book Rivers, 2025.
  3. A. Yildirim and M. Kaya, “Optimizing Enterprise Data Workflows Through Cloud-Based Analytics Platforms: A Study on Performance, Interoperability, and Governance,” Annu. Compend. Multidiscip. Sci. Insights Technol. Front. , vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1–14, 2025.
  4. Y. Zhang, Y. Chronis, J. M. Patel, and T. Rekatsinas, “Simple Adaptive Query Processing vs. Learned Query Optimizers: Observations and Analysis,” VLDB J., vol. 34, no. 5, p. 62, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s00778-025-00936-6.
  5. P. Jinka, “Data Warehouse Optimization Techniques: A Survey Of Query Processing, Storage, And Performance Enhancement Methods,”,” World J. Adv. Eng. Technol. Sci., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 216–226, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.30574/wjaets.2026.20.2.0408.
  6. A. Deshpande, Z. Ives, and V. Raman, “Adaptive query processing,” Found. Trends Databases, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–140, 2007, doi: 10.1561/1900000001.
  7. H. L. Boddupally, “Architectural and workload-driven optimization of SQL Server for high-performance enterprise systems,” Available SSRN 6736958, 2018.
  8. M. Liu, Z. G. Ives, and B. T. Loo, “Enabling Incremental Query Re-Optimization,” in Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data, ACM, Jun. 2016, pp. 1705–1720. doi: 10.1145/2882903.2915212.
  9. L. Chen, Q. Zheng, Z. Pan, C. Yang, R. Zhang, and X. Zhou, “BOND: A Co-Designed Framework for LLM-Powered Analytics Over Relational Data,” in 2026 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), IEEE, May 2026, pp. 1914–1926. doi: 10.1109/ICDE65706.2026.00145.
  10. X. Tang, J. Xie, W. Liu, R. Cao, and T. Deng, “Remaining Workload-Aware Dynamic Task Scheduling Algorithm on Spark Heterogeneous Systems,” IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. 75, no. 7, pp. 2490–2504, Jul. 2026, doi: 10.1109/TC.2026.3688594.
  11. J. Zhao, K. Su, Y. Yang, X. Yu, P. Koutris, and H. Zhang, “Debunking the myth of join ordering: Toward robust SQL analytics,” Proc. ACM Manag. Data, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–28, 2025.
  12. Z. Wu, J. Liang, J. Fu, M. Wang, and Y. Jiang, “PUPPY: Finding Performance Degradation Bugs in DBMSs via Limited-Optimization Plan Construction,” in 2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), IEEE, Apr. 2025, pp. 679–690. doi: 10.1109/ICSE55347.2025.00045.
  13. A. Herlihy, G. Martres, A. Ailamaki, and M. Odersky, “Adaptive Recursive Query Optimization,” in 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), IEEE, May 2024, pp. 368–381. doi: 10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00035.
  14. T. Wang, Y. Niu, and C.-Y. Chan, “Complete Join Reordering for Null-Intolerant Joins,” in 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), IEEE, Apr. 2023, pp. 1734–1746. doi: 10.1109/ICDE55515.2023.00136.
  15. R. Bergmann, “Join Order Benchmark,” Mar. 2026, Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19205561.