Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#2Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#3Then our software engineering team ingest the dbt models (we have to tactically create dbt models; that is, always think "what would make LLM hallucinate less" as we are implementing them) and info from the semantic layer to build context for the LLM, and use that to answer analytical questions. So far, it's been promising. The accuracy isn't zero like the blog's author suggested though. We have built like 30 metrics in dbt and semantic layer in the last quarter, and asked the research and analytics teams to do internal testing on the LLM app. I will find out how accurate this approach is from the feedback soon.
Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#4 > It is widely known that an LLM can only find data it has seen before.
What does this mean? It’s obviously not literally true, so what is the author trying to convey?Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#5Friend of mine built a startup around this, allowing non-techies to "query their database using natural language": https://www.blazesql.com/ Not sure how he achieved it (if TFA is to be believed), but it's my impression that his query generation and results are fairly robust.
Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#6That is the crux of the issue. No amount of semantic layers and context will help this until an LLM can read the user’s mind to remove ambiguity in the prompt.
I see most of the benefits of LLMs to be used by analysts who know SQL to work more productivly.
Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#7Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#8The biggest issue with business users (who don’t know SQL) writing SQL with an LLM is that there is no one to validate that query and now that business user will treat that LLM response as canon to share in meetings, presentations, and with clients. The LLM may have forgotten a filter, used the wrong definition of revenue, or misunderstood the user’s intent by writing a query that answers their question in the most l…
Maybe one separate semantics validation layer could help, but costs 2x or possibly Nx if you need to recover and turn a wrong query into a correct one
Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#9That's awful. The AI in Databricks is much better than that.
Re: Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores
#10The best thing you can do for your data agent is build a clean frontroom around your specific desired use cases -- with very clear documentation and obvious idiomatic join patterns built on clear marts. It is hard work, but I've been doing this a while and this is the only way.
A full top down rebuild is rarely feasible and can take years. What I suggest is focusing on rebuilding your base layers and introducing a versioned schema/model approach (to isolate breaking changes). Even with the data/compute redundancy it introduces, it is so much easier to move the sale report from customers_v1 to customers_v2 than it is to evaluate what happens when you remove the salesforce id as primary key from customers into all the downstream dependencies.