Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2312.17510

Testing Database Engines via Query Plan Guidance

Jinsheng Ba·Manuel Rigger
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Database systems are widely used to store and query data. Test oracles have been proposed to find logic bugs in such systems, that is, bugs that cause the database system to compute an incorrect result. To realize a fully automated testing approach, such test oracles are paired with a test case generation technique; a test case refers to a database state and a query on which the test oracle can be applied. In this work, we propose the concept of Query Plan Guidance (QPG) for guiding automated testing towards "interesting" test cases. SQL and other query languages are declarative. Thus, to execute a query, the database system translates every operator in the source language to one of potentially many so-called physical operators that can be executed; the tree of physical operators is referred to as the query plan. Our intuition is that by steering testing towards exploring diverse query plans, we also explore more interesting behaviors-some of which are potentially incorrect. To this end, we propose a mutation technique that gradually applies promising mutations to the database state, causing the DBMS to create diverse query plans for subsequent queries. We applied our method to three mature, widely-used, and extensively-tested database systems-SQLite, TiDB, and CockroachDB-and found 53 unique, previously unknown bugs. Our method exercises 4.85-408.48X more unique query plans than a naive random generation method and 7.46X more than a code coverage guidance method. Since most database systems-including commercial ones-expose query plans to the user, we consider QPG a generally applicable, black-box approach and believe that the core idea could also be applied in other contexts (e.g., to measure the quality of a test suite).

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jinsheng Ba, Manuel Rigger. 2023-12-29. Testing Database Engines via Query Plan Guidance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.17510

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗