arxiv-2408-05109 SRC-0252 · paperA Survey of Text-to-SQL in the Era of LLMs: Where are we, and where are we going?
Xinyu Liu, Shuyu Shen, Boyan Li, Peixian Ma, Runzhi Jiang, Yuxin Zhang, Ju Fan, Guoliang Li
Created: 2024-08-09 · Ingested: 2026-09-19
https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05109(opens in a new tab)Translating users' natural language queries (NL) into SQL queries (i.e., Text-to-SQL, a.k.a. NL2SQL) can significantly reduce barriers to accessing relational databases and support various commercial applications. The performance of Text-to-SQL has been greatly enhanced with the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of Text-to-SQL techniques powered by LLMs, covering its entire lifecycle from the following four aspects: (1) Model: Text-to-SQL translation techniques that tackle not only NL ambiguity and under-specification, but also properly map NL with database schema and instances; (2) Data: From the collection of training data, data synthesis due to training data scarcity, to Text-to-SQL benchmarks; (3) Evaluation: Evaluating Text-to-SQL methods from multiple angles using different metrics and granularities; and (4) Error Analy…
In brief
Text-to-SQL research has reorganized itself around a modular pipeline rather than end-to-end generation, and this survey argues that the bottleneck has shifted from understanding natural language to handling databases. The authors review LLM-era systems through 4 lenses: model, data, evaluation, and error analysis.
The survey covers the lifecycle from pre-processing (schema linking, database content retrieval, additional information acquisition) through translation (encoding, decoding, prompt strategy, intermediate representation) to post-processing (correction, output consistency, execution-guided refinement, n-best reranking). Table I compares design choices across solutions dated 2020-2025, including DIN-SQL, DAIL-SQL, RESDSQL, CodeS, MAC-SQL, CHESS, CHASE-SQL, and Alpha-SQL, plus earlier PLM work such as PICARD, RAT-SQL, and Graphix-T5.
The only accuracy figures given are for the PLM stage: models resolved approximately 80% of cases in Spider, dropping to about 50% on Spider's extra hard cases. No head-to-head reproduction of LLM-based systems is reported in the text here; claims about which modules help are drawn from the cited papers, not re-measured under a common setup.
The contributions that are original to the authors are organizational: a two-level error taxonomy, a roadmap for adapting LLMs to Text-to-SQL, and a decision flow for module selection. These are argued, not validated empirically.
Use it as a map of the module space and benchmark landscape, not as evidence about which pipeline wins.
Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-10-17, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.
Referenced by
Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.