Architectural Blueprint and Vendor Analysis for Natural Language Database Interaction: A Guide to Querying Large-Scale MySQL Databases

Section 1: Executive Summary

Purpose

This report provides a comprehensive analysis and strategic blueprint for implementing a natural language query (Text-to-SQL) system for a large-scale, 2TB, 30-table MySQL database. The primary objective is to empower non-technical business users to generate reports and derive insights through conversational queries, thereby democratizing data access and accelerating decision-making. This document evaluates the technological landscape, architectural patterns, commercial solutions, and open-source implementations, culminating in a detailed cost analysis and a strategic implementation roadmap.

Problem Statement

Enterprises possess vast and valuable data assets, yet access to this information is often bottlenecked by the requirement for specialized technical skills, such as proficiency in Structured Query Language (SQL).¹ For a database of significant size (2TB) and complexity (30 tables), this challenge is magnified. Business users who need ad-hoc reports must rely on data analytics teams, leading to delays and inhibiting a culture of data-driven exploration. The goal is to bridge this gap by enabling users to “chat” with their database in plain language, receiving accurate data and visualizations in response.³

Core Findings

The analysis reveals three distinct and viable pathways for implementing a Text-to-SQL solution, each presenting a fundamental trade-off between control, cost, speed, and required expertise. The selection of a solution is not merely a technical choice but a strategic commitment to a specific data governance and operational model.

1. Managed SaaS/PaaS Platforms: These solutions, offered by vendors like Vanna.AI and Shakudo, provide the fastest route to a functional system with the lowest initial development overhead.⁵ They abstract away the complexities of model hosting and application logic. However, this approach entails recurring subscription costs and raises significant data governance questions, as database schema metadata must be shared with a third-party service, a potential concern for organizations with sensitive data.⁴
2. Hybrid Architecture (Self-Hosted Orchestration with Proprietary LLMs): This model offers a balance of control and capability. An application is developed and hosted within the organization’s own infrastructure (e.g., a private cloud VPC), which manages the logic of retrieving database context and orchestrating calls to powerful, proprietary Large Language Model (LLM) APIs like OpenAI’s GPT-4o or Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet.⁸ This maintains data sovereignty over the application layer while leveraging the superior reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art models, but at the cost of variable, usage-based API fees.
3. Fully Self-Hosted Open-Source Solution: This pathway provides maximum control, security, and cost predictability. All components—the application, the vector database, and the LLM itself—are deployed within the organization’s infrastructure, ensuring no data or metadata ever leaves the private network.¹¹ This eliminates per-query API costs but demands the most significant upfront investment in hardware (or cloud compute), MLOps, and specialized in-house expertise to select, fine-tune, and maintain the open-source models and ensure their accuracy, particularly on CPU-only infrastructure.⁴

Key Recommendations Overview

The optimal solution is contingent on the organization’s primary strategic drivers. A decision matrix is presented below, with detailed recommendations in the final section of this report.

Priority Driver	Recommended Pathway	Rationale
Maximum Security & Cost Control	Self-Hosted Open-Source	Keeps all data and metadata in-house; fixed infrastructure costs instead of variable API fees. Requires significant internal expertise.
Fastest Time-to-Value & Highest Initial Accuracy	Managed SaaS/PaaS	Leverages pre-built, optimized platforms for rapid deployment. Accuracy benefits from vendor’s specialized models and platform-wide learning.
Balanced Control & Performance	Hybrid Architecture	Combines the security of a self-hosted application with the state-of-the-art performance of proprietary LLMs. Offers high customizability.

Estimated Cost Spectrum

The financial investment varies significantly across these pathways. The following are high-level annual cost estimates, which are explored in detail in the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis section.

• Managed SaaS/PaaS: Annual subscription costs typically range from $20,000 to $60,000+, depending on the number of users, features, and support level.
• Hybrid Architecture: Costs are dominated by LLM API usage. Moderate query volumes could result in annual costs of $6,000 to $60,000+, in addition to minimal infrastructure costs for the orchestration application.
• Self-Hosted Open-Source (on Cloud CPU): Infrastructure costs for a suitable reserved cloud instance range from approximately $2,400 to $7,200 per year. However, the primary cost is the required human capital (development and maintenance), bringing the effective annual TCO to $50,000 to $150,000+.

Section 2: The Text-to-SQL Technology Landscape

The Evolution from BI Tools to Conversational AI

For decades, Business Intelligence (BI) tools have been the primary interface for non-technical users to engage with enterprise data. These tools excel at presenting data through pre-configured dashboards and reports, offering powerful visualization and filtering capabilities within a structured, pre-defined analytical framework. However, their core limitation lies in their rigidity; they are designed to answer known questions. When a user has an ad-hoc query that falls outside the scope of an existing dashboard, they must revert to filing a request with a data analytics team, reintroducing the human bottleneck.²

Conversational AI, specifically Text-to-SQL technology, represents a paradigm shift from static reporting to dynamic, exploratory analysis. It empowers users to ask novel questions in their own words, effectively “democratizing data” by removing the prerequisite of SQL proficiency.¹ This transition enables a more fluid and intuitive interaction with data, fostering a culture where insights can be generated on-demand by those closest to the business problems.

Core Components of an LLM-based Text-to-SQL System

Modern Text-to-SQL systems are complex applications that orchestrate several distinct processes to translate a natural language question into an accurate database query and a comprehensible answer. The typical workflow can be deconstructed into four key stages ¹:

1. Natural Language Processing (NLP) & Intent Understanding: The system first receives the user’s query (e.g., “Which five sales representatives had the highest revenue last quarter?”). The initial step involves parsing this input to understand the user’s core intent and identify key entities (e.g., “sales representatives,” “revenue,” “last quarter”).
2. Schema Linking: This is the most critical and challenging stage. The system must map the identified entities from the user’s query to the specific tables and columns within the database schema. For example, it needs to determine that “sales representatives” corresponds to the employees table and “revenue” corresponds to the total_amount column in the sales table.
3. SQL Generation: With the user’s intent understood and the relevant schema components identified, the LLM constructs an executable SQL query. This involves selecting the correct SQL syntax (e.g., SELECT, JOIN, WHERE, GROUP BY, ORDER BY), handling data types correctly, and ensuring the query is valid for the target database dialect (in this case, MySQL).
4. Execution and Result Presentation: The generated SQL query is executed against the database. The raw tabular result is then often passed back to an LLM to be synthesized into a natural language summary, or formatted into a chart or other visualization for the end-user.¹

The Central Architectural Decision: RAG vs. Fine-Tuning

To enable an LLM to perform the schema linking and SQL generation steps accurately, it must be provided with knowledge about the specific database it is querying. There are two primary methods for imparting this knowledge:

• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): This has become the dominant architectural pattern for enterprise Text-to-SQL applications. In a RAG system, the LLM is not permanently altered. Instead, for every incoming user query, the system first retrieves relevant information about the database schema—such as the CREATE TABLE statements (DDL), column descriptions, and examples of correct queries. This retrieved context is then dynamically inserted into the prompt that is sent to the LLM, along with the user’s question. The LLM uses this just-in-time information to generate a contextually aware and accurate SQL query. This approach is favored for several reasons: it is significantly cheaper than fine-tuning, it allows the underlying LLM to be swapped out easily as better models become available, and the knowledge base can be updated simply by changing the stored metadata without retraining the model.¹² Frameworks like Vanna are built entirely around this RAG-centric philosophy.¹²
• Fine-Tuning: This method involves taking a base open-source LLM and further training it on a large, curated dataset of question-SQL pairs that are specific to the target database. This process adjusts the internal weights of the model, making it an “expert” on that particular schema. While fine-tuning can lead to very high accuracy for highly specialized or complex domains, it is a far more intensive and costly process. It requires creating a substantial training dataset (often thousands of examples), significant computational resources (typically high-end GPUs), and specialized MLOps expertise to manage the training process.⁴ Due to these barriers, RAG is the more practical and widely adopted approach for most enterprise use cases.

The Challenge of the “Semantic Gap”

The fundamental difficulty in Text-to-SQL lies in bridging the “semantic gap.” LLMs are pre-trained on vast amounts of general text and code from the internet; they understand the syntax of SQL and the general concepts of language. However, they have no intrinsic knowledge of a specific organization’s private database, with its unique business logic, cryptic column names (ord_val instead of order_value), and implicit join relationships.¹⁸ An LLM might not know that “best-selling” in a particular business context means “highest revenue” and not “highest quantity sold”.²¹ This gap between the LLM’s general knowledge and the database’s specific context is the primary source of errors and hallucinations. All effective Text-to-SQL architectures are, at their core, sophisticated systems designed to bridge this semantic gap by providing the LLM with the precise context it needs to reason accurately about the user’s data.²²

The industry’s clear convergence on RAG-based architectures underscores a critical point: the accuracy of a Text-to-SQL system is often more dependent on the quality of the retrieval step than on the raw power of the LLM itself. The process begins with the user’s query, which triggers a search across a knowledge base of database metadata. This knowledge base, often stored in a vector database, contains embeddings of table schemas, column descriptions, business definitions, and sample queries.²⁴ If this retrieval step fails to identify and provide the correct tables and contextual clues, even the most advanced LLM like GPT-4o will be unable to generate a correct query. Consequently, the engineering challenge shifts from simply choosing the best model to a more nuanced data engineering problem: curating high-quality metadata and optimizing the retrieval strategy to ensure the LLM always receives the right information at the right time. This makes the curation of the knowledge base the most critical factor for success in a complex, 30-table environment.

Section 3: Core Architectural Patterns for Enterprise Deployment

To address the challenges of Text-to-SQL, several distinct architectural patterns have emerged. These patterns offer different trade-offs in terms of management, cost, security, and customizability. Understanding these blueprints is essential for selecting a solution that aligns with an organization’s technical capabilities and strategic goals.

Pattern I: Fully Managed SaaS/PaaS Integration

This pattern represents the most straightforward path to implementation, abstracting nearly all technical complexity from the end-user organization.

• Description: The organization connects its MySQL database to a third-party, cloud-hosted platform that provides Text-to-SQL as a service. Vendors in this space, such as Vanna.AI (in its Cloud offering) and Text2SQL.ai, manage the entire technology stack: the user interface, the application logic, the vector store for metadata, and the LLM inference pipeline.⁵
• Workflow: A user interacts with the SaaS platform’s interface (e.g., a web application or Slack bot). The query is sent to the vendor’s service, which has been pre-trained on the customer’s database schema. The platform’s internal RAG pipeline generates the SQL, executes it against the customer’s database (typically through a secure, permission-limited connection), synthesizes the results, and returns a user-friendly answer.
• Pros:

• Speed to Market: The fastest deployment option, often configurable in hours or days.
• Zero Infrastructure Management: No need to provision servers, manage models, or maintain application code.
• Continuous Improvement: The platform benefits from model updates and improvements made by the vendor for all its customers.
• Cons:

• Data Privacy & Security: This is the primary concern. While the database’s content may not be exfiltrated, the schema metadata (table names, column names, descriptions) must be sent to and stored by the third-party vendor. This may be unacceptable for organizations under strict regulatory compliance like HIPAA or those with highly sensitive intellectual property.⁴
• Limited Customizability: The ability to alter the core logic, prompting strategies, or integration points is constrained by the vendor’s offerings.
• Recurring Costs: Pricing is typically based on a recurring subscription model, which can become a significant operational expense over time.

Pattern II: Cloud-Native Integrated Services

This pattern leverages the tightly integrated suite of AI and data services offered by major cloud providers like AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure.

• Description: Instead of a single third-party platform, the solution is constructed by composing multiple managed services from a single cloud provider. For instance, a solution on AWS might use Amazon Bedrock as the LLM provider, Amazon OpenSearch or RDS for PostgreSQL with pgvector as the vector store, AWS Lambda for the business logic, and Amazon Athena to query the data source.²⁴ A similar architecture on Google Cloud would use Vertex AI for the LLM, a vector database, and connect to AlloyDB or BigQuery.²⁵
• Workflow (AWS Example): A user query triggers an AWS Lambda function. The function uses Amazon Titan embeddings to convert the query into a vector and searches an OpenSearch vector store containing the database schema metadata. The retrieved metadata and the user’s question are then passed to an Amazon Bedrock agent, which uses a model like Anthropic’s Claude to generate a SQL query. The agent executes this query against the database via Athena and returns the formatted result.²⁷
• Pros:

• Deep Ecosystem Integration: Seamlessly connects with existing cloud data sources, identity and access management (IAM), and security services.
• Managed Scalability: Each component is a managed service designed to scale automatically with demand.
• Data Residency: All data and metadata remain within the trusted boundary of the chosen cloud provider.
• Cons:

• Vendor Lock-In: The solution becomes deeply dependent on the specific services and APIs of one cloud provider, making future migration difficult and costly.
• Configuration Complexity: While the components are managed, architecting, configuring, and connecting them correctly requires significant cloud expertise.
• Opaque Pricing: The final cost is an aggregation of charges from multiple services (compute, storage, model inference, data transfer), which can be complex to predict and manage.

Pattern III: Hybrid RAG Architecture (Self-Hosted Orchestration)

This is a highly popular and flexible pattern that balances control with the power of leading LLMs.

• Description: The core application logic is developed and deployed within the organization’s own secure environment (e.g., a Docker container in a private VPC). This application is responsible for the entire RAG pipeline. It receives a user query, retrieves relevant context from a self-hosted vector database (like ChromaDB or a PostgreSQL instance with pgvector), constructs a detailed prompt, and then makes an API call to an external, proprietary LLM service (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic, Google). The LLM’s response (the SQL query) is returned to the self-hosted application for validation and execution.¹²
• Workflow: A user sends a query to the self-hosted application. The application retrieves the relevant schema from its local vector DB. It then constructs a prompt and sends only this prompt (containing the query and schema snippet) to the external LLM API. The API returns the generated SQL. The application validates the SQL, executes it against the internal database, and returns the result to the user.
• Pros:

• Full Control: The organization retains complete control over the application logic, security, and data flow. Only the anonymized prompt leaves the internal network.
• Best-of-Breed LLMs: Allows the use of the most powerful proprietary models on the market without being locked into a specific platform.
• High Customizability: The entire workflow, from retrieval strategy to prompt engineering and post-processing, can be tailored to specific needs.
• Cons:

• Development Overhead: Requires in-house development and ongoing maintenance of the application and its infrastructure.
• Variable API Costs: The primary operational cost is per-token API usage, which can be unpredictable and scale directly with query volume.
• Latency: Each query involves a network round-trip to an external API, which can introduce latency.

Pattern IV: Agentic Frameworks for Complex Reasoning

This pattern is an advanced evolution of the Hybrid Architecture, designed to handle the ambiguity and complexity inherent in large, real-world databases.

• Description: This approach utilizes sophisticated open-source frameworks like LangChain or LlamaIndex to build an “agent” rather than a simple, single-step chain.¹⁰ An LLM acts as a “reasoning engine” for the agent. The agent is given access to a toolkit of functions, such as
  list_tables(), get_schema(table_name), and execute_sql(query). When presented with a user query, the LLM decides which tools to use in sequence to solve the problem, mimicking the exploratory process of a human data analyst.²⁹
• Workflow: A user asks, “Which department has the highest average employee salary?” The agent’s LLM first decides to call the list_tables() tool. After reviewing the list of tables (employees, departments, salaries), it decides the next step is to call get_schema() for all three. With the schema context, it then generates a SQL query. The agent can then use a validation tool to check the SQL for errors. If an error occurs, the error message is fed back to the LLM, which then attempts to self-correct the query. Only after successful validation is the query executed.³⁰
• Pros:

• Superior Accuracy on Complex Queries: The multi-step reasoning process is far more effective at resolving ambiguity and constructing complex queries involving multiple joins and subqueries.
• Robust Error Handling: The ability to self-correct based on execution feedback makes the system more resilient and reliable.
• High Extensibility: New tools can be easily added to the agent’s toolkit, allowing it to perform new functions over time.
• Cons:

• Increased Latency and Cost: Each step in the reasoning process can require a separate LLM call, increasing both the end-to-end response time and the total API token usage per query.
• Debugging Complexity: The “chain of thought” of the agent can be non-deterministic and difficult to trace, making it challenging to debug when it fails.

The emergence of these agentic frameworks marks a significant evolution in the field. Early Text-to-SQL systems attempted to solve the problem in a single, monolithic step, which proved brittle when faced with enterprise-scale complexity.⁹ The agentic approach recognizes that database querying is not a simple translation task but an iterative, problem-solving process. By equipping the LLM with tools that mirror a human analyst’s workflow—exploring schemas, drafting queries, validating syntax, and refining based on errors—these systems can tackle a much higher degree of complexity and ambiguity, making them particularly well-suited for the user’s 30-table database challenge.²⁰

Section 4: Solution Deep Dive I: Managed Services and Proprietary Platforms

This section provides a detailed comparative analysis of leading commercial solutions that leverage proprietary LLMs. These platforms are designed to accelerate deployment and provide enterprise-grade features, offering a strong alternative to building a system from the ground up.

A. Specialized Text-to-SQL Platforms

These vendors focus specifically on the problem of conversational data interaction, offering polished and feature-rich solutions.

Vanna.AI

Vanna.AI has established itself as a prominent player through a unique hybrid strategy that combines a powerful open-source framework with managed enterprise offerings.⁵

• Offerings: Vanna provides a spectrum of solutions: Vanna Cloud is a fully managed SaaS platform; Vanna Self-Hosted Enterprise allows deployment within a client’s VPC for maximum data sovereignty; Vanna Embedded provides API access for integration into existing applications; and Vanna OSS is the MIT-licensed open-source Python framework that underpins all their products.⁵
• Mechanism: The core of Vanna is a RAG-based system. It emphasizes a “training” process where the system learns from database metadata, including DDL statements (table schemas), human-written documentation (defining business terms), and existing, validated SQL queries.¹² This rich context allows for high accuracy on complex datasets. A key feature is its self-learning capability, where user feedback on generated queries is used to augment the training data, continuously improving the model’s performance over time.⁵
• Security: Vanna’s architecture is designed with security in mind. The platform asserts that the contents of the client’s database are never sent to the LLM. The training process and subsequent query generation rely solely on the schema, documentation, and sample queries stored in a separate metadata layer (a vector database).⁵ This is a critical security posture for enterprises concerned about data exfiltration.
• Database Support: The framework is database-agnostic and can connect to any database supported by Python. It has explicit, well-documented support and connection methods for MySQL.³⁵

Shakudo

Shakudo positions itself as a comprehensive “operating system for data and AI,” with Text-to-SQL being one of its core capabilities.⁶ Its focus is on providing an integrated, scalable, and secure platform for enterprise deployment.

• Offerings: Shakudo’s primary offering is an enterprise platform designed to be deployed within the client’s own cloud environment (VPC) or on-premises, ensuring full data control.⁶
• Mechanism: The platform is built on a Kubernetes-based architecture, designed for high scalability and performance under demanding workloads. It emphasizes creating a unified semantic layer over disparate data sources to ensure consistency. A key feature is its transparent query generation, which provides explanations of how natural language is interpreted and translated into SQL, building user trust.⁶
• Security: Data sovereignty is a central tenet of Shakudo’s value proposition. By running entirely within the client’s infrastructure, it guarantees that no data or metadata leaves their control. It also implements granular, role-based access controls at the query level to prevent data leaks and is SOC 2 compliant.⁶
• Database Support: The platform is compatible with various SQL dialects, including MySQL.⁶

Text2SQL.ai

Text2SQL.ai offers a more direct, developer-centric tool focused on the core task of converting text to SQL, primarily through a public API.

• Offerings: A SaaS tool with a free-to-try tier and paid plans that provide API access for integration into custom applications.²⁶
• Mechanism: The service uses a proprietary LLM system trained to understand the specific syntax and features of various database systems. For optimal accuracy, users must provide their database schema (tables, columns, relationships), which the AI uses to craft precise and optimized queries.²⁶
• Security: Text2SQL.ai provides detailed documentation on its security measures. It encrypts database connection information at rest, with encryption keys stored separately. Critically, it only stores the database schema, not the actual data. It uses the OpenAI API under a contract that ensures customer data is not used for training OpenAI’s models.⁷ Authentication is handled via Supabase, which is SOC 2 and HIPAA compliant.⁷

B. Integrated Cloud Provider Offerings

The major cloud providers are increasingly integrating generative AI capabilities directly into their data platforms, offering powerful, native solutions.

Google Cloud Platform (GCP)

GCP offers multiple avenues for implementing Text-to-SQL, from database-integrated features to flexible AI platforms.

• AlloyDB AI: This is a feature built directly into AlloyDB, Google’s managed PostgreSQL-compatible database service. It functions as a database extension (alloydb_ai_nl) that, once enabled, provides SQL functions to translate natural language into queries. This approach requires enabling Vertex AI integration and involves registering schemas and creating query templates to guide the model.²⁸ It represents a deeply integrated, database-native solution.
• Vertex AI + BigQuery/Cloud SQL: This is a more general architectural pattern rather than a single product. It involves using Google’s powerful Gemini family of models, accessible through the Vertex AI platform, to generate SQL queries for data stored in BigQuery or Cloud SQL.²¹ This approach leverages advanced techniques like vector search for retrieving relevant schema information, using LLMs for disambiguating user intent, and implementing validation-and-reprompting loops for self-correction.²¹ Gemini’s large context window is a key advantage for handling complex schemas.²¹

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

AWS provides a highly flexible and powerful set of building blocks for constructing custom Text-to-SQL solutions, centered around its Amazon Bedrock service.

• Amazon Bedrock Agents: This is a managed framework for building agentic AI applications. It allows developers to orchestrate workflows that can involve multiple LLM calls, custom business logic via AWS Lambda functions, and RAG through knowledge bases.²⁷ This is an ideal platform for implementing the advanced “Agentic Framework” pattern described previously. AWS provides numerous reference architectures for building robust Text-to-SQL solutions using Bedrock Agents to query data in sources like Amazon RDS and Amazon Athena.²⁴
• Foundation Models on Bedrock: Bedrock provides API access to a wide range of models, including those from Anthropic (Claude 3.5 Sonnet), Meta (Llama 3), and Amazon’s own Titan and Nova models.⁴¹ This allows organizations to choose the best model for the task while remaining within the secure AWS ecosystem. For example, a common pattern uses the powerful Amazon Nova Pro model for complex SQL generation and the faster, more cost-effective Amazon Nova Lite model for formatting the final results into a user-friendly summary.⁴²

Microsoft Azure

The typical pattern on Azure involves combining its AI search and OpenAI services to create a RAG-based Text-to-SQL system.

• Azure AI Search + Azure OpenAI Service: In this architecture, Azure AI Search is used to index the database schema metadata, including table and column names, descriptions, and relationships. When a user submits a query, the system first queries Azure AI Search to retrieve the most relevant schema context. This context is then passed to a powerful model, such as GPT-4, hosted securely via the Azure OpenAI Service, which generates the final SQL query.⁴³

Commercial Text-to-SQL Platform Feature Matrix

Platform	Core Model(s)	Deployment Model	Key Differentiator	Security Posture	MySQL Support	Estimated Starting Cost (Annual)
Vanna.AI	Pluggable (OpenAI, Gemini, etc.)	SaaS, Self-Hosted, Embedded API	Strong open-source RAG framework with self-learning capabilities from user feedback.5	High. Claims database content is never sent to LLM; only metadata is used.5	Yes, explicit support.35	$20,000 – $50,000 (Enterprise)
Shakudo	Pluggable (LLMs, Vector DBs)	Self-Hosted (Client’s Cloud/On-Prem)	Integrated “Data OS” with Kubernetes-based scalability and a focus on semantic consistency.6	Very High. Full data sovereignty; SOC 2 compliant; query-level access controls.6	Yes.6	Contact Sales (Likely >$50,000)
Text2SQL.ai	Proprietary (uses OpenAI API)	SaaS with Public API	Developer-focused API for direct integration into custom tools; supports wide range of databases.26	Good. Encrypts connection info; stores only schema; no-training contract with OpenAI.7	Yes, explicit support.26	~$1,000 – $5,000 (Pro/API usage)
GCP AlloyDB AI	Google Gemini	Integrated PaaS (Database Extension)	Native integration directly within the AlloyDB database engine for low-latency, secure querying.28	Very High. All operations occur within the GCP project boundary.	No (PostgreSQL-compatible only).	Based on AlloyDB and Vertex AI usage.
AWS Bedrock Agents	Pluggable (Claude, Llama, Titan, etc.)	Integrated PaaS (Managed Framework)	Highly flexible agentic framework for building complex, multi-step reasoning and self-correcting workflows.27	Very High. All operations occur within the AWS account boundary.	Yes (via RDS/Athena).	Based on Bedrock, Lambda, and other AWS service usage.

Section 5: Solution Deep Dive II: Self-Hosted Open-Source Implementations

For organizations prioritizing data sovereignty, cost control, and maximum customizability, a self-hosted solution built on open-source components is the most compelling option. This path eliminates reliance on third-party vendors and recurring API fees but requires a deeper investment in technical implementation and maintenance. A critical constraint for this analysis is the requirement to run effectively on servers without dedicated graphics cards (GPUs), necessitating a focus on CPU-optimized models and inference engines.

A. Core Frameworks and Libraries

Several open-source frameworks provide the necessary scaffolding to build a robust Text-to-SQL application.

• Vanna OSS: The open-source version of Vanna is a powerful, MIT-licensed Python framework centered on the RAG architecture.¹² Its key strength is its modularity. Developers can easily connect it to any SQL database (including MySQL), choose from various vector databases for metadata storage (like the lightweight, local ChromaDB), and integrate any LLM, whether accessed via API or hosted locally. The framework provides a clear methodology for “training” the RAG system by feeding it DDL, documentation, and sample SQL queries, which is essential for achieving high accuracy.¹² It also offers pre-built front-end integrations for Streamlit and Slack, accelerating the development of a user-facing application.¹²
• PremSQL: This is a newer, open-source library specifically designed for building “local-first” Text-to-SQL pipelines with small language models.¹¹ It provides a comprehensive, end-to-end toolkit that includes components for managing datasets, generating SQL (
  Generators), executing queries against a database (Executors), and evaluating performance (Evaluators). Its focus on local deployment and small models makes it an excellent candidate for CPU-only environments where data privacy is paramount.¹¹
• LangChain & LlamaIndex: These are powerful “meta-frameworks” for composing applications with LLMs, rather than being specialized Text-to-SQL tools themselves.³² Their strength lies in enabling the creation of the advanced agentic architectures (Pattern IV) discussed previously. Using LangChain’s SQL Agent toolkit, a developer can build a system where the LLM can iteratively query the database schema, construct a query, validate it, and self-correct upon failure.¹⁰ This level of sophistication is often necessary to handle the complexity of a 30-table database schema accurately.²⁰

B. Optimizing LLMs for CPU Inference

Running modern LLMs, even smaller ones, on CPUs presents a significant performance challenge. Unoptimized, a 7-billion-parameter model would be too slow for an interactive chat application. The following techniques are essential for making CPU inference viable.

• The Necessity of Quantization: LLMs are typically trained and stored using 16-bit floating-point numbers (FP16 or BF16) for their weights. For a 7-billion-parameter model, this requires over 14 GB of RAM just to load the model, before accounting for any processing. Quantization is a technique that reduces the precision of these weights, often to 4-bit integers (INT4). This dramatically reduces the model’s file size and RAM footprint (by roughly 75%) and significantly speeds up computation on CPUs, which are more efficient at integer arithmetic. While there is a minor loss in accuracy, it is often an acceptable trade-off for the massive performance gains.⁴⁸
• The GGUF Format: GGUF is the de facto standard file format for quantized models intended for CPU-based inference. It is an evolution of the older GGML format and is the native format for the llama.cpp inference engine.⁴⁹ When selecting an open-source model for CPU deployment, it is crucial to find a version that has been converted to GGUF format, as these files are optimized for this specific use case.
• Inference Engines for CPU:

• llama.cpp: This is the core engine that makes efficient CPU inference possible. It is a highly optimized C++ library that can run GGUF models on a wide range of hardware, including standard x86 servers.⁴⁹ Most higher-level tools use
  llama.cpp under the hood.
• Ollama: A user-friendly tool that simplifies the process of downloading, managing, and running GGUF models locally. It provides a simple server endpoint, making it easy to integrate a locally running LLM into a custom application like one built with Vanna or LangChain. It is an excellent choice for abstracting away the complexities of llama.cpp.⁴⁸
• vLLM (CPU Support): While vLLM is renowned for its high-throughput GPU serving capabilities, it also has experimental support for CPU inference.⁵³ It may be a viable option for serving models in a production environment, but its CPU performance is still under active development and may not match more mature CPU-first solutions. Performance benchmarks show a significant gap between its CPU and GPU capabilities.⁵⁵

C. Recommended Models for Text-to-SQL on CPU

The choice of model is a balance between capability, size, and performance. For CPU inference, models in the 7B to 15B parameter range are the most practical.

• Specialized Models:

• SQLCoder2: This is a family of models from Defog.ai specifically fine-tuned for Text-to-SQL generation. Benchmarks show that even smaller versions of SQLCoder can outperform much larger, general-purpose models like GPT-4 on this specific task.⁵⁸ Quantized GGUF versions are readily available, making it a top recommendation for this use case.⁴⁹
• CodeS: This is another series of open-source models (1B to 15B parameters) explicitly pre-trained for the Text-to-SQL task. Their smaller size makes them well-suited for resource-constrained environments.⁶⁰
• General-Purpose Code Models:

• Llama 3 8B Instruct: Meta’s Llama 3 models are exceptionally capable, and the 8B version offers a fantastic balance of performance and size. It is a strong general-purpose model with excellent coding and reasoning abilities that translate well to SQL generation.⁵¹
• Mistral 7B / Mixtral 8x7B: Mistral AI’s models are known for their efficiency, providing performance that often rivals larger models. The 7B model is a very popular choice for local, CPU-based deployment due to its small footprint and strong capabilities.⁴⁸
• DeepSeek-Coder: This family of models is highly optimized for code-related tasks and has demonstrated strong performance in benchmarks, making it another excellent candidate for SQL generation.⁵¹

D. Hardware Requirements and Performance Benchmarks

Deploying an LLM on a CPU-only server shifts the primary hardware constraint from VRAM (on a GPU) to system RAM.

• CPU: A modern, multi-core server processor is recommended. High clock speeds and a large L3 cache are beneficial. Processors like AMD’s EPYC or Ryzen Threadripper series, or Intel’s Xeon series, are ideal.⁶³
• RAM: This is the most critical component. The server must have enough RAM to load the entire quantized GGUF model file into memory, with additional headroom for the operating system, the application itself, and the model’s context window (the memory used to process prompts). A safe rule of thumb is: Required RAM = (GGUF Model File Size * 1.5) + Application Memory. For a 15B parameter model quantized to Q4_K_M (~10 GB file size), a server with at least 32 GB of RAM is recommended, while 64 GB would provide a much safer margin for larger context sizes and future growth.⁵⁰
• Performance: It is crucial to set realistic performance expectations. On a capable multi-core CPU, a 7B parameter model in a 4-bit GGUF format can typically achieve an inference speed of 5 to 20 tokens per second.⁶² This is fast enough for a user to perceive as interactive (akin to a slow typist) but is an order of magnitude slower than GPU-based inference, which can generate hundreds of tokens per second. The latency will be noticeable but is often acceptable for internal business applications.

Open-Source LLMs for CPU-Based Text-to-SQL

Model Name	Base Size	Recommended Quantization	GGUF File Size (GB)	Minimum RAM Required (GB)	Estimated CPU Performance (Tokens/sec)	Key Strengths
sqlcoder2-GGUF 50	15B	Q4_K_M	9.96	32	5 – 15	State-of-the-art for Text-to-SQL; specifically trained for this task.
Llama-3-8B-Instruct-GGUF	8B	Q5_K_M	5.13	16	10 – 20	Excellent all-around reasoning and instruction following; strong community support.
Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2-GGUF	7B	Q5_K_M	4.78	16	10 – 25	Highly efficient and performant for its size; a popular choice for local deployment.
DeepSeek-Coder-6.7B-Instruct-GGUF	6.7B	Q5_K_M	4.78	16	10 – 20	Specialized for code generation, which translates well to SQL syntax.

Section 6: Addressing the Scalability and Complexity Challenge (The 2TB, 30-Table Problem)

A generic Text-to-SQL solution will almost certainly fail when confronted with a real-world enterprise database of 2TB and 30 interconnected tables. The primary obstacles are the sheer complexity of the schema and the need for unwavering accuracy and security. This section outlines specific strategies to overcome these challenges, transforming a proof-of-concept into a production-ready system. The core principle is to move beyond a single model and architect a compound AI system, where multiple specialized components work in concert to achieve a reliable outcome.

A. Taming Schema Complexity

The most immediate technical barrier is the size of the database schema. An LLM cannot effectively reason about all 30 tables simultaneously.

• The Context Window Problem: LLMs have a finite “context window,” which is the maximum amount of text they can process at one time. While modern models have large windows (e.g., 128,000 tokens for Llama 3.1), attempting to fit the full DDL (Data Definition Language) for 30 tables, along with column descriptions and sample data, is inefficient and counterproductive. It consumes excessive tokens (increasing cost and latency) and, more importantly, inundates the model with irrelevant information, increasing the likelihood of hallucination and incorrect query generation.¹⁸
• Dynamic Schema Retrieval (Schema Linking): The definitive solution to this problem is to provide the LLM with only the schema information relevant to the user’s specific question. This is achieved through a dynamic, multi-step RAG process often called schema linking.²⁰ The workflow is as follows:

1. Create a Metadata Knowledge Base: The schema for all 30 tables, along with crucial human-written descriptions, is indexed and stored in a vector database.
2. Initial Retrieval Step: When a user asks a question, the system first performs a semantic search against this vector database to identify the top 3-5 most relevant tables and columns.
3. Contextual Prompting: Only the DDL and descriptions for this small, relevant subset of tables are retrieved and inserted into the prompt for the main SQL-generating LLM. This focuses the LLM’s attention exclusively on the necessary information, dramatically improving accuracy.

• The Critical Importance of Curated Metadata: Raw DDL is insufficient. The success of the retrieval step—and thus the entire system—hinges on the quality of the metadata associated with the schema. Each table and column should have a clear, concise, human-written description that explains its business purpose, clarifies ambiguous names (e.g., “The is_active flag indicates a currently subscribed customer”), and provides hints about join keys.¹² Investing significant upfront effort in curating this metadata is the single most important factor in achieving high accuracy with a complex schema.

B. Ensuring Query Accuracy and Reliability

Even with the correct schema context, LLMs can still generate incorrect or unsafe SQL. A production system must include layers of validation and control.

• Advanced Prompt Engineering: The prompt sent to the LLM should be meticulously engineered. Beyond just providing the schema, it should include:

• Few-Shot Examples: 2-3 examples of well-formed natural language questions paired with their correct, gold-standard SQL queries for the given database. This helps the model understand the expected output format and common query patterns.²¹
• Chain-of-Thought Instructions: Explicitly instructing the model to “think step by step” before writing the final SQL query can improve its reasoning process for complex requests involving multiple joins or subqueries.⁶⁹
• Self-Correction and Validation Loops: A robust system never blindly executes the LLM’s output. Instead, it implements a validation loop:

1. The LLM generates a SQL query.
2. The application intercepts the query and runs it through a syntactic parser or a database EXPLAIN command to check for validity without executing it.²⁹
3. If the query is invalid, the error message from the database is captured.
4. A new prompt is sent to the LLM, containing the original question, the faulty SQL, the error message, and an instruction to “fix the query based on the error”.²⁴
   
   This iterative self-correction process mimics how a human developer debugs code and significantly increases the system’s reliability.8

• Implementing Security Guardrails: Security is non-negotiable. The system must be designed with multiple layers of protection:

• Read-Only Access: The database user account connected to the Text-to-SQL application must have read-only permissions, making destructive operations like DELETE, UPDATE, or DROP impossible at the database level.
• Query Sanitization: The application should include a layer that explicitly blocks queries containing forbidden keywords, providing a defense-in-depth against prompt injection attacks.⁷¹
• Row-Level Security: For multi-tenant applications or systems with different user permission levels, the application logic must automatically inject WHERE clauses into the final SQL query based on the authenticated user’s role or identity. This ensures users can only see the data they are authorized to access, a critical requirement that cannot be left to the LLM alone.²⁰

C. Performance and Optimization

For an interactive application, response time is a key factor. Several techniques can be used to improve performance.

• Semantic Caching: Many user queries are repetitive or semantically similar. A semantic cache can dramatically reduce latency and cost (especially for API-based models). When a new query arrives, it is converted into a vector embedding and compared against a cache of previous queries. If a sufficiently similar query is found in the cache, the system can return the stored SQL query and its results directly, bypassing the expensive LLM generation step entirely.¹⁴
• Query Optimization: LLMs are trained to produce correct SQL, not necessarily performant SQL. A generated query might use inefficient join patterns or fail to leverage database indexes. An advanced system can include an optional step where the generated SQL is passed to another model or a rule-based system for analysis and potential rewriting to improve execution performance on the 2TB database. However, this adds significant complexity to the architecture.⁷⁰

Section 7: Comprehensive Cost Analysis and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

A thorough financial analysis is critical for selecting a sustainable Text-to-SQL solution. The cost structures of managed services, hybrid API-based systems, and self-hosted open-source solutions are fundamentally different. This section presents a 3-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model for the three most viable architectural patterns, providing a framework for a data-driven investment decision.

A. Cost Model for Managed Services (e.g., Vanna Enterprise)

This model is characterized by predictable, recurring operational expenditures (OpEx) with minimal capital expenditure (CapEx).

• Components:

• Subscription Fees: The primary cost is an annual or monthly license fee. This fee is often tiered based on the number of users, connected data sources, or advanced features like audit logs and dedicated support.
• Usage Overages: Some plans may include additional charges if query volumes or API calls exceed certain thresholds.
• Estimate: Based on typical enterprise SaaS pricing for specialized AI platforms, annual costs can be expected to fall in the range of $20,000 to $60,000+. For a 30-table, multi-user deployment, a mid-to-high tier plan would likely be required.

B. Cost Model for Hybrid Architecture (Proprietary LLMs)

This model involves low fixed infrastructure costs but has variable, usage-based OpEx tied directly to LLM API calls.

• Components:

• LLM API Costs: This is the dominant and most variable cost. Pricing is based on the number of input and output tokens processed. Agentic workflows, which require multiple LLM calls per user query for reasoning and self-correction, can significantly increase token consumption compared to single-shot generation.
• Infrastructure Costs: A small, continuously running cloud virtual machine is needed to host the orchestration application and the vector database. A general-purpose instance (e.g., AWS t4g.medium or GCP e2-medium) is typically sufficient.
• Estimate: Assuming moderate usage of 500 complex queries per day, with each query consuming an average of 10,000 tokens for an agentic workflow using a premium model like Claude 3.5 Sonnet (at ~$3/million input tokens, $15/million output tokens), monthly API costs could range from $500 to $5,000+. This translates to an annual API cost of $6,000 to $60,000+, plus approximately $500 – $1,000 per year for the cloud VM.

C. Cost Model for Self-Hosted Open-Source (CPU Inference)

This model shifts costs from recurring OpEx (API fees) to upfront CapEx (for on-premise hardware) or predictable OpEx (for cloud VMs), with the most significant cost being the internal human capital required for development and maintenance.

• Components:
• Infrastructure Costs:

• On-Premise Server: A one-time capital expenditure for a server equipped with a modern multi-core CPU (e.g., AMD Ryzen 9) and 64-128 GB of RAM. Estimated hardware cost: $2,000 – $5,000.⁷⁴
• Cloud VM: A recurring operational expense for a CPU-optimized cloud instance. For example, a Google Cloud c3-highcpu-8 instance (8 vCPU, 16 GB RAM) costs approximately $0.30/hour on-demand, but this can be reduced by over 50% with a 3-year commitment, bringing the monthly cost to around $100 – $150.⁷⁶ A more robust instance with 64 GB of RAM (e.g., AWS
  c5.12xlarge reserved) would be in the range of $600 – $800 per month.⁷⁸
• Development & Maintenance Costs: This is the most significant and often underestimated cost. Building, deploying, and maintaining a production-grade open-source solution requires dedicated engineering effort. This includes initial setup, curating the extensive metadata for all 30 tables, implementing security guardrails, monitoring performance, and updating the system. This can be conservatively estimated as requiring 0.5 to 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) engineer, representing an annual personnel cost of $75,000 – $180,000+.
• Estimate (Cloud VM):

• Infrastructure: A 3-year reserved instance suitable for running a 15B parameter model (e.g., 16 vCPUs, 64 GB RAM) would cost approximately $400 – $700 per month, or $4,800 – $8,400 per year.⁷⁷
• Total Annual Cost: When factoring in the necessary personnel costs, the TCO is dominated by labor, bringing the total to $80,000 – $190,000+ per year.

3-Year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Projection

Cost Category	Scenario 1: Managed SaaS	Scenario 2: Hybrid w/ Claude 3.5 API	Scenario 3: Self-Hosted OS (Cloud VM)
Software/API Fees	$120,000 ($40k/yr)	$108,000 ($36k/yr avg.)	$0
Infrastructure	$0	$3,000 ($1k/yr)	$21,600 ($7.2k/yr)
Development (Initial)	$5,000 (Integration)	$40,000 (1 dev, 3 months)	$80,000 (1 dev, 6 months)
Maintenance (Annual)	Included in Subscription	$37,500 (0.25 FTE)	$75,000 (0.5 FTE)
3-Year TCO	~$125,000	~$263,500	~$326,600

Note: TCO estimates are illustrative and based on mid-range assumptions for usage and personnel costs. The Hybrid API cost can vary dramatically with query volume.

This TCO analysis reveals a crucial finding: while the self-hosted open-source path eliminates direct software and API fees, its total cost of ownership can be significantly higher than managed services when the necessary investment in specialized human capital is factored in. The decision, therefore, hinges not just on direct costs but on the availability and opportunity cost of internal engineering resources.

Section 8: Strategic Recommendations and Implementation Roadmap

The selection of a Text-to-SQL solution is a strategic decision with long-term implications for data governance, operational agility, and financial planning. The optimal path depends on a clear understanding of the organization’s unique priorities. This final section provides a decision framework, tailored recommendations, and a phased implementation plan to guide this process.

A. The Decision Framework: A Recommendation Matrix

The following matrix scores the three primary architectural patterns against the most critical business and technical criteria. Scores are assigned on a scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent).

Criterion	Managed SaaS (e.g., Vanna Cloud)	Hybrid w/ Proprietary API (e.g., LangChain + Claude)	Self-Hosted Open-Source (e.g., Vanna OSS + SQLCoder2)
3-Year TCO	4	2	1
Data Privacy & Security	3	4	5
Time to Initial Value	5	3	2
Accuracy on Complex Queries	4	5	3
Scalability	4	5	4
Internal Expertise Required	5 (Low)	3 (Moderate)	1 (High)

B. Tailored Recommendations

Based on the framework above, the following strategic recommendations are provided:

• Recommendation 1: For Organizations Prioritizing Maximum Security, Data Sovereignty, and Predictable Costs.

• Pathway: Self-Hosted Open-Source.
• Rationale: This is the only approach that guarantees no database schema or metadata ever leaves the organization’s private network. The costs are fixed based on infrastructure and personnel, avoiding the unpredictable, usage-based fees of API calls.
• Caveats: This path should only be undertaken if the organization is prepared to make a significant, long-term investment in building and maintaining an internal team with expertise in MLOps, data engineering, and applied AI. The initial development effort, particularly in curating the metadata for the 30-table schema, will be substantial.
• Recommendation 2: For Organizations Prioritizing State-of-the-Art Accuracy and Maximum Flexibility.

• Pathway: Hybrid Architecture with a Top-Tier Proprietary Model.
• Rationale: Leading proprietary models like Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet and OpenAI’s GPT-4o currently offer the highest general reasoning capabilities, which translates to superior accuracy in interpreting ambiguous user queries and generating complex SQL.³⁹ Using an agentic framework like LangChain provides unparalleled flexibility to design custom, multi-step reasoning and self-correction logic tailored to the database’s specific complexities.
• Caveats: This path carries the highest potential for runaway costs if query volume is high or unpredictable. It requires robust monitoring and budget controls for API usage. While more secure than a fully managed SaaS, it still involves sending prompts (containing schema snippets) to an external service.
• Recommendation 3: For Organizations Prioritizing Speed-to-Market and Ease of Use for Business Teams.

• Pathway: Managed SaaS/PaaS Platform.
• Rationale: This approach offers the fastest and simplest way to deliver a functional Text-to-SQL solution to end-users. The vendor handles all the underlying complexity, allowing the organization to focus on user adoption and deriving business value. The TCO is often the lowest when accounting for the full cost of internal engineering talent.
• Caveats: The organization must be comfortable with the vendor’s security and data governance model, which involves sharing schema metadata. There is also a risk of vendor lock-in and less control over the product’s future roadmap.

C. Phased Implementation Roadmap

Regardless of the chosen pathway, a phased, iterative approach is recommended to mitigate risk and ensure the final solution meets user needs.

• Phase 1: Proof of Concept (PoC) (Duration: 4-6 weeks)

1. Scope Definition: Select a representative but manageable subset of the database (e.g., 5-10 core tables related to a single business domain like sales or logistics).
2. Metadata Curation: Dedicate significant effort to writing high-quality, human-readable descriptions for every table and column in the PoC scope. Collect 10-20 examples of common business questions and their corresponding “gold standard” SQL queries.
3. Parallel Evaluation: If resources permit, run parallel PoCs on the top two recommended pathways (e.g., trial Vanna Cloud while simultaneously building a local prototype with Vanna OSS and SQLCoder2).
4. Define Success Metrics: Establish clear, measurable goals, such as “The system must correctly answer 80% of test questions without manual intervention” and “Average query response time must be under 15 seconds.”

• Phase 2: Pilot Program (Duration: 2-3 months)

1. Architecture Selection: Based on the PoC results, select the winning architecture for further development.
2. Schema Expansion: Expand the metadata knowledge base to cover all 30 tables of the MySQL database.
3. Onboard Pilot Users: Roll out the solution to a small, controlled group of 5-10 “friendly” business users who can provide constructive feedback.
4. Establish Feedback Loop: Implement a simple mechanism for users to rate the quality of answers and report errors. Use this feedback to continuously refine the system’s metadata and prompt templates. This self-learning loop is critical for long-term success.⁵

• Phase 3: Production Rollout & Governance (Ongoing)

1. General Availability: Release the validated and refined solution to the broader target user base.
2. Monitoring and Auditing: Implement robust logging to monitor query patterns, system performance, and accuracy rates. Regularly audit usage to ensure compliance with data governance and security policies.⁷¹
3. Formalize Maintenance: Establish a clear process for updating the metadata knowledge base whenever the underlying database schema is modified. An out-of-date knowledge base is a primary cause of accuracy degradation over time.

Works cited

1. Text to SQL Development Services Company – Webkul, accessed August 15, 2025, https://webkul.com/text-to-sql-development-services/
2. Natural language to sql – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SQL/comments/180oigg/natural_language_to_sql/
3. Natural language BI: Query your database with no-code AI solutions – Celigo, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.celigo.com/blog/text-to-sql-access-databases-no-code-ai-solutions/
4. Text-to-SQL: Giving Users Natural Language Access to Data, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.bcg.com/x/the-multiplier/removing-barriers-to-data-with-text-to-sql
5. Vanna.AI – Personalized AI SQL Agent, accessed August 15, 2025, https://vanna.ai/
6. Text to SQL | Shakudo, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.shakudo.io/natural-language-to-sql
7. Security And Privacy Measures at Text2SQL.ai, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.text2sql.ai/docs/security-measures
8. Bridging Natural Language and SQL with Generative AI – Salesforce Engineering Blog, accessed August 15, 2025, https://engineering.salesforce.com/bridging-natural-language-and-sql-with-generative-ai/
9. How to Go From Text to SQL with LLMs – KDnuggets, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.kdnuggets.com/how-to-go-from-text-to-sql-with-llms
10. Build an Agent – ️ LangChain, accessed August 15, 2025, https://python.langchain.com/docs/tutorials/agents/
11. PremSQL: Towards end-to-end Local First Text to SQL pipelines – Prem AI Blog, accessed August 15, 2025, https://blog.premai.io/premsql-towards-end-to-end-local-text-to-sql-pipelines-2/
12. vanna-ai/vanna: Chat with your SQL database . Accurate Text-to-SQL Generation via LLMs using RAG . – GitHub, accessed August 15, 2025, https://github.com/vanna-ai/vanna
13. Open-Source GenBI Agent — Text-to-SQL Made Easy – Wren AI, accessed August 15, 2025, https://getwren.ai/oss
14. Generating value from enterprise data: Best practices for Text2SQL and generative AI – AWS, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/generating-value-from-enterprise-data-best-practices-for-text2sql-and-generative-ai/
15. Next-Generation Database Interfaces: A Survey of LLM-based Text-to-SQL – arXiv, accessed August 15, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2406.08426v4
16. Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Accurate SQL Generation, accessed August 15, 2025, https://ezinsights.ai/how-to-finetune-llms-for-sql/
17. Build an SQL Copilot with LLMs and Synthetic Data – Predibase, accessed August 15, 2025, https://predibase.com/blog/how-to-create-an-sql-copilot-by-fine-tuning-llms-with-synthetic-data
18. How Text-to-SQL Can Help the Enterprise Engage with Databases – Oracle Blogs, accessed August 15, 2025, https://blogs.oracle.com/ai-and-datascience/post/how-texttosql-can-help-the-enterprise-engage-with-databases
19. A Case Study: Text-to-SQL Failures on Enterprise Data – Numbers Station, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.numbersstation.ai/a-case-study-text-to-sql-failures-on-enterprise-data/
20. Text-to-SQL with extremely complex schema : r/deeplearning – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/deeplearning/comments/1amlhl2/texttosql_with_extremely_complex_schema/
21. Techniques for improving text-to-SQL | Google Cloud Blog, accessed August 15, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/databases/techniques-for-improving-text-to-sql
22. LLM text-to-SQL solutions: Top challenges and tips – K2view, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.k2view.com/blog/llm-text-to-sql/
23. Text-to-SQL with extremely complex schema : r/LangChain – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LangChain/comments/1amlftk/texttosql_with_extremely_complex_schema/
24. Build a robust text-to-SQL solution generating complex queries, self-correcting, and querying diverse data sources | Artificial Intelligence – AWS, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/build-a-robust-text-to-sql-solution-generating-complex-queries-self-correcting-and-querying-diverse-data-sources/
25. A Comprehensive Guide to RAG-to-SQL on Google Cloud – Analytics Vidhya, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2024/10/rag-to-sql-on-google-cloud/
26. Text to SQL & AI Query Generator | Text2SQL.ai (Free to Try), accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.text2sql.ai/
27. Guidance for Retrieving Data Using Natural Language Queries on AWS, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/guidance/retrieving-data-using-natural-language-queries-on-aws/
28. Generate SQL queries using natural language questions | AlloyDB for PostgreSQL, accessed August 15, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/alloydb/docs/ai/generate-sql-queries-natural-language
29. Build a conversational data assistant, Part 1: Text-to-SQL with Amazon Bedrock Agents, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/build-a-conversational-data-assistant-part-1-text-to-sql-with-amazon-bedrock-agents/
30. arunpshankar/LLM-Text-to-SQL-Architectures – GitHub, accessed August 15, 2025, https://github.com/arunpshankar/LLM-Text-to-SQL-Architectures
31. How to connect LLM to SQL database with LangChain SQLChain | by Dishen Wang | Dataherald | Medium, accessed August 15, 2025, https://medium.com/dataherald/how-to-langchain-sqlchain-c7342dd41614
32. Question-Answering (RAG) – LlamaIndex, accessed August 15, 2025, https://docs.llamaindex.ai/en/stable/use_cases/q_and_a/
33. Learn MCP by building an SQL AI Agent : r/LangChain – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LangChain/comments/1jdcuix/learn_mcp_by_building_an_sql_ai_agent/
34. LLMs and SQL – LangChain Blog, accessed August 15, 2025, https://blog.langchain.com/llms-and-sql/
35. Generating SQL for MySQL using Other LLM, ChromaDB – Vanna.AI Documentation, accessed August 15, 2025, https://vanna.ai/docs/mysql-other-llm-chromadb/
36. Generating SQL for MySQL using OpenAI via Vanna.AI (Recommended), Vanna Hosted Vector DB (Recommended), accessed August 15, 2025, https://vanna.ai/docs/mysql-openai-vanna-vannadb/
37. Privacy Policy | Text2SQL.ai, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.text2sql.ai/privacy
38. Natural Language AI – Google Cloud, accessed August 15, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/natural-language
39. Enterprise-grade natural language to SQL generation using LLMs: Balancing accuracy, latency, and scale | Artificial Intelligence – AWS, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/enterprise-grade-natural-language-to-sql-generation-using-llms-balancing-accuracy-latency-and-scale/
40. aws-samples/text-to-sql-for-athena – GitHub, accessed August 15, 2025, https://github.com/aws-samples/text-to-sql-for-athena
41. Build your gen AI–based text-to-SQL application using RAG, powered by Amazon Bedrock (Claude 3 Sonnet and Amazon Titan for embedding) | Artificial Intelligence, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/build-your-gen-ai-based-text-to-sql-application-using-rag-powered-by-amazon-bedrock-claude-3-sonnet-and-amazon-titan-for-embedding/
42. Build a Text-to-SQL solution for data consistency in generative AI using Amazon Nova, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/build-a-text-to-sql-solution-for-data-consistency-in-generative-ai-using-amazon-nova/
43. Chat bot Text-to-SQL using Azure AI Services – Microsoft Q&A, accessed August 15, 2025, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/2142935/chat-bot-text-to-sql-using-azure-ai-services
44. 6 Text2SQL Tools to Write Stunning SQL for you ☄️ – DEV Community, accessed August 15, 2025, https://dev.to/milasuperstar/6-text2sql-tools-to-write-stunning-sql-for-you-nn9
45. PremSQL: Our Open-Source Journey Towards Secure, Local Text-to-SQL Solutions – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1fdibn6/premsql_our_opensource_journey_towards_secure/
46. Build an LLM RAG Chatbot With LangChain – Real Python, accessed August 15, 2025, https://realpython.com/build-llm-rag-chatbot-with-langchain/
47. Build a Question/Answering system over SQL data | 🦜️ LangChain, accessed August 15, 2025, https://python.langchain.com/docs/tutorials/sql_qa/
48. Running Small LLMs Locally: My Journey With and Without GPUs | by Ibrahim Sajid Malick, accessed August 15, 2025, https://medium.com/@IbrahimMalick/running-small-llms-locally-my-journey-with-and-without-gpus-1e256cde33bb
49. Sqlcoder2 GGUF · Models – Dataloop AI, accessed August 15, 2025, https://dataloop.ai/library/model/thebloke_sqlcoder2-gguf/
50. TheBloke/sqlcoder2-GGUF – Hugging Face, accessed August 15, 2025, https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/sqlcoder2-GGUF
51. Best Open Source LLMs of 2025 – Klu.ai, accessed August 15, 2025, https://klu.ai/blog/open-source-llm-models
52. EASIEST Way to Fine-Tune a LLM and Use It With Ollama – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxhkDaKzBaY
53. CPU – vLLM, accessed August 15, 2025, https://docs.vllm.ai/en/stable/getting_started/installation/cpu.html
54. vLLM: Efficient Serving with Scalable Performance | by Gautam Chutani | Medium, accessed August 15, 2025, https://gautam75.medium.com/vllm-efficient-serving-with-scalable-performance-cb72c155b89e
55. [Performance]: vllm inference in CPU instance has generation < 10 tokens / second #7379, accessed August 15, 2025, https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/7379
56. Hexgen-Text2SQL: Optimizing LLM Inference Request Scheduling for Agentic Text-to-SQL Workflows – arXiv, accessed August 15, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2505.05286v1
57. vLLM v0.6.0: 2.7x Throughput Improvement and 5x Latency Reduction, accessed August 15, 2025, https://blog.vllm.ai/2024/09/05/perf-update.html
58. defog-ai/sqlcoder: SoTA LLM for converting natural language questions to SQL queries – GitHub, accessed August 15, 2025, https://github.com/defog-ai/sqlcoder
59. Benchmarking NaturalSQL against State of the Art LLMs – ChatDB, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.chatdb.ai/post/naturalsql-vs-sqlcoder-for-text-to-sql
60. CodeS: Towards Building Open-source Language Models for Text-to-SQL – arXiv, accessed August 15, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2402.16347v1
61. 9 Top Open-Source LLMs for 2024 and Their Uses – DataCamp, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.datacamp.com/blog/top-open-source-llms
62. Local LLMs: How Well Do CPUs and GPUs Really Perform? A Practical AI Benchmark, accessed August 15, 2025, https://medium.com/@mental-complex.ai/local-llms-how-well-do-cpus-and-gpus-really-perform-a-practical-ai-benchmark-6793fc683f13
63. Recommended Hardware for Running LLMs Locally – GeeksforGeeks, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/deep-learning/recommended-hardware-for-running-llms-locally/
64. How do I understand requirements to run any LLM locally? : r/LocalLLM – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLM/comments/1hm15ox/how_do_i_understand_requirements_to_run_any_llm/
65. How to run any quantized GGUF model on CPU for local inference? – Stack Overflow, accessed August 15, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/77630013/how-to-run-any-quantized-gguf-model-on-cpu-for-local-inference
66. Hardware specs for GGUF 7B/13B/30B parameter models · ggml-org llama.cpp · Discussion #3847 – GitHub, accessed August 15, 2025, https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/discussions/3847
67. CPU-only benchmark produces text at slow reading pace (~5 t/s) : r/LocalLLaMA – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/18ybtnn/cpuonly_benchmark_produces_text_at_slow_reading/
68. Text-to-SQL: Comparison of LLM Accuracy in 2025 – Research AIMultiple, accessed August 15, 2025, https://research.aimultiple.com/text-to-sql/
69. Optimizing Text-to-SQL Generation in Large Language Models – DiVA portal, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1833681/FULLTEXT02.pdf
70. Enhancing LLM Fine-tuning for Text-to-SQLs by SQL Quality Measurement – arXiv, accessed August 15, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.01869v1
71. Secure Text-to-SQL Generation with Private LLMs: A Complete Guide to Data-Driven Insights – C4Scale, accessed August 15, 2025, https://c4scale.com/blog/secure-text-to-sql-generation-with-private-llms-a-complete-guide-to-data-driven-insights/
72. Build an AI-powered text-to-SQL chatbot using Amazon Bedrock, Amazon MemoryDB, and Amazon RDS | AWS Database Blog, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/build-an-ai-powered-text-to-sql-chatbot-using-amazon-bedrock-amazon-memorydb-and-amazon-rds/
73. A Survey of Text-to-SQL in the Era of LLMs: Where are we, and where are we going? – arXiv, accessed August 15, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2408.05109v5
74. Building an LLM-Optimized Linux Server on a Budget – LinuxBlog.io, accessed August 15, 2025, https://linuxblog.io/build-llm-linux-server-on-budget/
75. Server for LLM inference – Budget 5000$ : r/LocalLLaMA – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1bznmuz/server_for_llm_inference_budget_5000/
76. GCP Compute Engine Pricing – Economize Cloud, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.economize.cloud/resources/gcp/pricing/compute-engine/
77. VM instance pricing | Google Cloud, accessed August 15, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/compute/vm-instance-pricing
78. Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison, accessed August 15, 2025, https://instances.vantage.sh/
79. Compute and EC2 Instance Savings Plans – AWS, accessed August 15, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/savingsplans/compute-pricing/
80. Azure VM Pricing: What You Don’t Know (not yet) – Intercept, accessed August 15, 2025, https://intercept.cloud/en-gb/blogs/azure-vm-pricing
81. We benchmarked 19 popular LLMs on SQL generation with a 200M row dataset – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/dataengineering/comments/1khsiwd/we_benchmarked_19_popular_llms_on_sql_generation/