<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The Case for Cardinality Lower Bounds · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.13117/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.13117/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Case for Cardinality Lower Bounds — mentioned by mihailstoian</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46798692</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2601.13117:46798692</guid><pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 17:36:27 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;If you&amp;#x27;re referring to estimating join sizes, i.e., the stuff you have to estimate before you actually build the query plan, we&amp;#x27;re _almost_ there (but not yet). Do check out the following papers that show that you can obtain provable bounds on your join sizes. Basically, given a SQL query, they&amp;#x27;ll tell you how many tuples (max and min, respectively) the query will return. 1. LpBound: join size upper bounds. It still doesn&amp;#x27;t have full SQL coverage, e.g., string predicates, window functions, subqueries etc., but as with all cool stuff, it takes time to build it. 2. xBound: join size lower…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.13117/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DB</category></item></channel></rss>
