AI Technology
πŸ’¬ Text-to-SQL

πŸ’‘ Lessons Learned: Implementing a Text-to-SQL Platform in Production

This page documents key lessons and practical insights from building a Text-to-SQL platform in a large tech company with a massive datalake. The goal: share experiences with tech-facing readers who build scalable LLM-powered SQL systems.


πŸ› οΈ 1. Starting Small: The Early Roadmap

We began last year when context-window limits were a major bottleneck (e.g., LLM prompt context only ~2,048–4,096 tokens in many models at the time). Our initial experiment used a model we refer to as LLama NSQL and an open-source platform called Vanna, which required three core context-inputs:

  1. Database schema / DDL β€” all tables, relationships, constraints.
  2. Documentation / metadata β€” table/column business meanings, comments, descriptions.
  3. Question–SQL example pairs β€” natural language questions mapped to correct SQL for your schema.

With just these, Vanna could generate near-perfect SQL on a small, simple database. It was essentially a RAG-based approach (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) β€” ideal for simple cases.


πŸ“ˆ 2. Scaling & Roadmap Visual

We mapped out the following sequence:

PhaseFocusChallenge
Phase 1Small DB, simple tablesLightweight context, manageable token count
Phase 2Multiple tables, complex joinsSchema grows, context window becomes a limit
Phase 3Agent-based system, multi-tool orchestrationLatency + many LLM calls + retrieval overhead
Phase 4Production optimizationReduce end-to-end latency, manage hallucination, scale

β†’ Visual roadmap (you can insert a timeline graphic) Start β†’ Scale β†’ Agentization β†’ Optimization


πŸ”Ž 3. Scaling Challenges

When applying to many tables and complex joins:

  • Latency grew significantly.
  • SQL accuracy dropped for multi-table, multi-join queries.

We explored community tools and discovered Bird, which hosts Text-to-SQL challenges. Their "Chess system" inspired us to adopt agent-based architecture for reasoning + SQL generation.


⚑ 4. Latency & Context Window Constraints

In our early agent implementation:

  • Many LLM calls per query (tool chaining + retrieval).
  • Model context window couldn't accommodate full schema + metadata + examples.
  • A single query execution sometimes took ~30 minutes.

We realized: we must optimize what we send into the model and how often.


🧹 5. Workflow Optimization & Code Snippet

We reduced end-to-end execution to ~30 seconds by:

  • Pruning irrelevant schema parts.
  • Chunking metadata.
  • Minimizing LLM calls (fewer hops).
  • Tightening prompt structure.

Example: Prompt Template

You are a SQL-generation agent.
Schema:
{{ddl_snippet}}
Metadata:
{{metadata_snippet}}
Examples:
{{qa_pairs}}
Question:
{{user_question}}
Generate optimized SQL.

Example: Preprocessing Step

# Prune schema
relevant_tables = extract_relevant_tables(question, full_schema)
ddl_snippet = format_ddl(relevant_tables)

Important highlight: token budget matters. Much research (e.g., schema-pruning in text2sql) shows models degrade when input tokens exceed ~4k-8k. (arXiv (opens in a new tab)) In our case, we trimmed context until tokens ~3,000–4,000 per query consistently.


🧠 6. Key Technical Lessons

  1. Data quality is king. Good metadata + correct examples yield better SQL.
  2. LLM evolution brings new trade-offs. Bigger context windows help (e.g., GPT-4/5, Chaos models) but hallucinations increase.
  3. Multi-agent architecture is complex. Agents need communication protocols, orchestration, failure modes.
  4. Prompt + data = true asset. Models are tools; your input quality defines output.
  5. You cannot be purely agile. Rapid AI evolution means you must plan architecture, tool-chain, scalers carefully.

🌟 7. Practical Advice

  • Begin with a narrow scope (few tables) to validate your method.
  • Use RAG with schema + metadata + QA examples.
  • Prune and chunk your context to stay within model limits (~3k–4k tokens).
  • Minimize LLM calls: combine retrieval + generation steps.
  • Monitor SQL accuracy, hallucination, execution failures.
  • Build modular architecture: retrieval module, generation module, revision module.
  • Document everything: schema changes, prompt iterations, agent flows.

✨ 8. Ongoing Reflection & Future Work

Building production-level Text-to-SQL systems isn't just coding. It's data engineering + prompt design + system architecture + human insight. Models may get better, but if your metadata is messy or schema is outdated, you'll struggle. Human expertise remains the core.


πŸ“Œ Recommended Roadmap Diagram (to include)

  • Start: Small DB β†’ RAG β†’ Simple SQL
  • Scale: Many tables β†’ Complex joins β†’ Agentization
  • Optimize: Latency reduction β†’ Context window workarounds β†’ Hallucination checks
  • Mature: Multi-tenant, live datalake, revision agents, usage monitoring

🌐 Why Text-to-SQL Is Difficult β€” A Clear Summary

Text-to-SQL may look simple from the outside ("just convert a sentence into SQL"), but in practice it is one of the hardest LLM application problems, involving multiple complex layers from NLP to database theory.

Here's a polished explanation of the core challenges:

1️⃣ Natural Language Is Ambiguous & Context-Dependent

Human language is messy. Queries may be incomplete, vague, or contain hidden assumptions.

Examples:

  • "show me sales last month" β†’ sales of what? which region? which table is "sales"?
  • "top customers" β†’ by revenue? order count? last 30 days?

LLMs must infer intent and connect it to actual database meaning. This ambiguity is one of the largest barriers.

2️⃣ Mapping Intent β†’ SQL Requires Precise Logical Translation

Converting natural language into SQL is not a direct translation β€” it's reasoning + planning.

A Text-to-SQL system must:

  • identify entities (tables, columns, metrics)
  • map user intent to schema
  • generate syntactically valid SQL
  • ensure semantics are correct (produces meaningful results)

Even if grammar is correct, a small semantic mistake can produce:

  • wrong joins
  • missing filters
  • incorrect GROUP BY logic

SQL is extremely strict, while language is extremely flexible β€” a huge mismatch.

3️⃣ Deep Schema Understanding Is Required

A real-world database is often huge and messy:

  • hundreds of tables
  • thousands of columns
  • complicated relationships
  • inconsistent naming conventions
  • implicit business rules not documented in schema

A Text-to-SQL model must behave like a database expert, not just a language model. It needs to know:

  • how tables connect
  • foreign key paths
  • cardinality
  • which columns are meaningful
  • which tables should NEVER be joined

This is far beyond simple NLP.

4️⃣ Error Handling & Reliability Are Hard

A production system must gracefully handle: ❌ Invalid queries (e.g., wrong columns, missing tables) ❌ Bad user inputs (vague, incorrect, contradictory) ❌ Unexpected execution results (e.g., query returns millions of rows)

The system must:

  • detect errors
  • correct SQL
  • explain issues in human language
  • provide meaningful feedback

This adds a full engineering layer on top of LLM generation.

5️⃣ High-Quality Training Data Is Scarce & Expensive

Building accurate Text-to-SQL requires large, diverse training sets that reflect real business logic.

You need:

  • thousands of NL β†’ SQL pairs
  • complete schema + metadata
  • examples across many query types
  • domain-specific instructions

Manually creating this data is extremely costly. Open-source datasets (Spider, Bird, WikiSQL…) are helpful but do not match real Enterprise schemas, which are wider, messier, and contain business-specific rules.

6️⃣ Integration, Testing & Production Deployment Are Complex

Integrating Text-to-SQL into a live enterprise environment is non-trivial. You must handle:

  • permission models
  • database connections
  • latency optimization
  • schema versioning
  • caching
  • security / compliance
  • performance tuning
  • user feedback loops

And then comes testing:

  • unit test queries
  • edge cases
  • cross-schema scenarios
  • load testing
  • regression testing as schema changes

Testing Text-to-SQL is one of the hardest parts because the output space is huge and many SQLs are correct but not equivalent.

🎯 In Summary: Why Is Text-to-SQL Hard?

Because it requires the combination of:

  • NLP understanding β†’ interpret ambiguous human language
  • Logical reasoning β†’ plan steps and structure SQL
  • Database expertise β†’ understand schema, joins, constraints
  • Software engineering β†’ validate, execute, optimize, debug
  • Data engineering β†’ maintain metadata + training sets
  • Product design β†’ provide clear feedback to users

It's not just "generate SQL." It's the intersection of several entire disciplines.

This is why even big tech companies struggle with it β€” including the project you're working on.


πŸ”— References


πŸ› οΈ Tools & Technologies Mentioned

  • Vanna: Open-source Text-to-SQL platform
  • Bird: Text-to-SQL challenge platform
  • LLama NSQL: Custom model implementation
  • RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation): Core architectural pattern
  • Agent-based systems: Multi-tool orchestration approach