(Part 1/3) Rethinking ETLs  How Large Language Models (LLM) can enhance Data Transformation and Integration
Part 1: Searching for an Optimal Algorithm for ETL planning
Welcome to the first installment of our threepart series exploring the transformative impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) on ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) processes. In this opening segment, we focus on the search for an optimal algorithm for ETL planning.
As businesses increasingly rely on vast amounts of data to make critical decisions, the efficiency and effectiveness of ETL processes become paramount. Traditional methods often fall short in handling the complexity and scale of modern data environments, necessitating a shift towards more sophisticated tools.
In this part, we delve into how traditional algorithms can be used to design the planning stage of ETL workflows — we identify algorithms that are not only more efficient but also capable of handling complex, dynamic data scenarios. We will explore the foundational concepts behind these algorithms and discuss how they can be tailored to improve the entire data transformation and integration cycle.
Join us as we begin our journey into rethinking ETLs with the power of advanced language models, setting the stage for a deeper dive into practical applications and optimization strategies in the subsequent parts of the series.
Understanding the Problem
Before diving into algorithms, let’s clarify the core elements:
 Input Dataset: The structure (schema), data types, size, and potential quality issues of your initial data source.
 Output Dataset: The desired structure, data types, and any specific formatting requirements for your target data.
 ETL Operations: The available transformations at your disposal (e.g., cleaning, filtering, joining, aggregation, calculations).
Core Algorithm Considerations
Here’s a foundational outline of the algorithm, which we’ll refine for optimality:

Graph Construction:
 Represent datasets as nodes.
 Possible ETL operations define the potential edges between nodes.

Cost Assignment:
 Associate a cost with each ETL operation. Costs can incorporate:
 Computational Complexity: Time and resource usage of the operation.
 Data Volume impact: How the operation changes dataset size.
 Dependencies: Operations that must precede others.

Search/Optimization:
 Employ a search algorithm to find the path with the lowest cumulative cost from Start to End Node. Consider:
 Dijkstra’s Algorithm: Suited for finding the shortest overall path.
 A Search:* Incorporates heuristics (estimates of costtogoal) for potential speedups.
 Genetic Algorithms: Explore a broader search space, potentially finding unconventional but less costly solutions.
Optimization Refinements
 Dynamic Cost Adjustment: Costs aren’t static. Refine cost estimates during execution based on the actual characteristics of intermediate datasets.
 Caching and Materialization: If certain intermediary datasets are reused frequently, strategically store them to avoid recalculation.
 Parallelism: Leverage parallel processing in your ETL tool where possible to execute multiple operations simultaneously.
 Constraints: Factor in constraints like deadlines, resource limits, or errortolerance thresholds.
Algorithm Pseudocode (Illustrative)
function plan_ETL_steps(input_dataset, output_dataset, available_operations):
graph = create_graph(input_dataset, output_dataset, available_operations)
assign_costs(graph)
optimal_path = dijkstra_search(graph, start_node, end_node)
return optimal_path
Step 1: Define the GraphNode Class
We’ll start by defining a simple class for a graph node that includes basic attributes like node name and any additional data that describes the dataset state at that node.
class GraphNode:
def __init__(self, name, data=None):
self.name = name
self.data = data # Data can include schema, size, or other relevant details.
self.neighbors = [] # List of tuples (neighbor_node, cost)
def add_neighbor(self, neighbor, cost=1):
self.neighbors.append((neighbor, cost))
def __str__(self):
return f"GraphNode({self.name})"
Step 2: Edge Representation
The Edges must include multiple costs and a probability for each cost. This would typically involve storing each cost along with its probability in a tuple or a custom object.
Multiple costs can represent the computation cost ($) which can have probability in terms of spotinstances of compute available vs committed instances. These computation costs determination can be defined by the priority of the ETL pipeline, e.g. a pipeline / step that generates an end of day compliance report may need a more deterministic behavior and consequently a higher cost for committed computed instances.
class Edge:
def __init__(self, target, costs, probabilities):
self.target = target
self.costs = costs # List of costs
self.probabilities = probabilities # List of probabilities for each cost
Step 3: Function to Create Graph with Intermediate Nodes
This function simulates the creation of intermediate nodes based on hypothetical operations. Each operation affects the dataset, potentially creating a new node:
def create_graph(input_dataset, output_dataset, available_operations):
start_node = GraphNode("start", input_dataset)
end_node = GraphNode("end", output_dataset)
nodes = [start_node]
# Placeholder for a more sophisticated operations processing
current_nodes = [start_node]
for operation in available_operations:
new_nodes = []
for node in current_nodes:
# Generate a new node for each operation from each current node
intermediate_data = operation['apply'](node.data) # Hypothetical function to apply operation
new_node = GraphNode(f"{node.name}>{operation['name']}", intermediate_data)
node.add_neighbor(new_node, operation['cost'])
new_nodes.append(new_node)
# Update current nodes to the newly created nodes
current_nodes = new_nodes
nodes.extend(new_nodes)
# Connect the last set of nodes to the end node
for node in current_nodes:
node.add_neighbor(end_node, 1) # Assuming a nominal cost to reach the end state
return start_node, end_node, nodes
Step 4: Hypothetical Operation Definitions
To simulate realistic ETL operations, we define each operation with a function that modifies the dataset (simplified for this example):
def apply_cleaning(data):
return f"cleaned({data})"
def apply_transformation(data):
return f"transformed({data})"
available_operations = [
{'name': 'clean', 'apply': apply_cleaning, 'cost': 2},
{'name': 'transform', 'apply': apply_transformation, 'cost': 3}
]
Step 5: Implementing a modified Dijkstra’s Algorithm
Since each edge includes multiple costs with associated probabilities, the comparison of paths becomes probabilistic. We must determine a method to calculate the “expected” cost of a path based on the costs and their probabilities. The expected cost can be computed by summing the products of costs and their corresponding probabilities.
We need to redefine the comparison of paths in the priority queue to use these expected values, which involves calculating a composite cost that considers all probabilities.
import heapq
def calculate_expected_cost(costs, probabilities):
return sum(c * p for c, p in zip(costs, probabilities))
def dijkstra(start_node):
# Initialize distances with infinity
inf = float('infinity')
distances = {node: inf for node in all_nodes}
distances[start_node] = 0
# Priority queue holds tuples of (expected_cost, node)
priority_queue = [(0, start_node)]
visited = set()
while priority_queue:
current_expected_cost, current_node = heapq.heappop(priority_queue)
if current_node in visited:
continue
visited.add(current_node)
for edge in current_node.edges:
new_expected_cost = current_expected_cost + calculate_expected_cost(edge.costs, edge.probabilities)
if new_expected_cost < distances[edge.target]:
distances[edge.target] = new_expected_cost
heapq.heappush(priority_queue, (new_expected_cost, edge.target))
return distances
Example Execution
Here’s we might set up an example run of the above setup:
input_dataset = "raw_data"
output_dataset = "final_data"
start_node, end_node, all_nodes = create_graph(input_dataset, output_dataset, available_operations)
path, cost = dijkstra_search(start_node, end_node)
print("Optimal path:", path)
print("Total cost:", cost
This example demonstrates generating intermediate nodes dynamically as a result of applying operations in an ETL workflow. In a real application, the operations and their impacts would be more complex, involving actual data transformations, schema changes, and potentially conditional logic to decide which operations to apply based on the data’s characteristics or previous processing steps.
Defining a DSL
Creating a DomainSpecific Language (DSL) for modeling and specifying ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) processes can greatly simplify designing and implementing complex data workflows, particularly when integrating with a system that dynamically generates an ETL graph as previously discussed. Here’s an outline for a DSL that can describe datasets, operations, and their sequences in an ETL process:
DSL Structure Overview
The DSL will consist of definitions for datasets, operations (transforms and actions), and workflow sequences. Here’s an example of what each component might look like in our DSL:
1. Dataset Definitions
Datasets are defined by their names and potentially any metadata that describes their schema or other characteristics important for transformations.
dataset raw_data {
source: "path/to/source/file.csv"
schema: {id: int, name: string, value: float}
}
dataset intermediate_data {
derived_from: raw_data
schema: {id: int, name: string, value: float, cleaned_value: float}
}
dataset final_data {
derived_from: intermediate_data
schema: {id: int, name: string, final_value: float}
}
2. Operation Definitions
Operations can be transformations or any kind of data processing function. Each operation specifies input and output datasets and may include a cost or complexity rating.
operation clean_data {
input: raw_data
output: intermediate_data
cost: 2
function: apply_cleaning
}
operation transform_data {
input: intermediate_data
output: final_data
cost: 3
function: apply_transformation
}
3. Workflow Definition
A workflow defines the sequence of operations applied to turn raw data into its final form.
workflow main_etl {
start: raw_data
end: final_data
steps: [clean_data, transform_data]
}
Search Algorithm Selection
Let’s dive deeper into how to choose the best search algorithm for planning our ETL process. Recall that our core task involves finding the optimal (likely the lowest cost) path through the graph of datasets and ETL operations. While we defined a modified, Djiktra’s algorithm for variable and probabilistic costs, for discussion below we will use single aggregated weights.
Absolutely, let’s dive deeper into how to choose the best search algorithm for planning your ETL process. Recall that our core task involves finding the optimal (likely the lowest cost) path through the graph of datasets and ETL operations.
Key Search Algorithm Candidates

Dijkstra’s Algorithm:
 Classic shortest path algorithm.
 Guarantees finding the optimal solution if all edge costs are nonnegative.
 Wellsuited when your primary objective is minimizing the overall cumulative cost.
 Complexity:
O(V²)
in a simple implementation, but can be improved toO(E + VlogV)
using priority queues.V = number of nodes (datasets)
,E = number of edges (ETL operations)
.

A* Search
 Extension of Dijkstra’s that uses a heuristic function to guide the search.
 Heuristic: An estimate of the cost from a given node to the goal node.
 Can potentially find solutions faster than Dijkstra’s, especially when good heuristics are available.
 Complexity: Depends on the quality of the heuristic, but potentially still faster than a purely uninformed search like Dijkstra’s.

Genetic Algorithms
 Inspired by evolutionary processes.
 Maintain a population of potential ETL plans (paths).
 “Crossover” and “mutation” operations combine and modify plans iteratively, favoring those with lower costs.
 Excellent for exploring a wider range of solutions and potentially discovering nonintuitive, less costly paths.
 Complexity: Can be computationally intensive but may find better solutions in complex scenarios.
Factors Influencing Algorithm Selection

Size and Complexity of the ETL Graph: For smaller graphs, Dijkstra’s might be sufficient. Large, complex graphs might benefit from A* or genetic algorithms.

Importance of Optimality: If guaranteeing the absolute least cost path is critical, Dijkstra’s is the safest bet. If nearoptimal solutions are acceptable, A* or genetic algorithms could provide faster results.

Availability of Heuristics: A* search heavily depends on having a good heuristic function. In ETL, a heuristic could estimate the remaining cost based on the types of operations needed to reach the final dataset structure.

Resource Constraints: Genetic algorithms can be computationally expensive. If runtime or available resources are limited, Dijkstra’s or A* might be more practical.
Caveats
 No Perfect Algorithm: The best algorithm is often problemspecific. Experimentation might be necessary.
 Tool Integration: Our chosen ETL tool might have builtin optimization features or favor certain search algorithms.
Example: Heuristic for ETL
Imagine your goal is to minimize data volume throughout the process. A heuristic for A* search could be:
 Estimate the reduction (or increase) in dataset size caused by the remaining operations needed to reach the final output dataset.
In the next iteration of this series, we will walkthrough examples of ETL scenarios, leveraging A* Star algorithm above and explore various optimization goals.
Enjoy Reading This Article?
Here are some more articles you might like to read next: