Leading models for the text-to-SQL task heavily rely on proprietary Large Language Models (LLMs), posing concerns over data privacy. Closing the performance gap between small open-source models and large proprietary models is crucial to mitigate this reliance. To this end, we introduce a novel two-stage fine-tuning approach that decomposes the task into two simpler tasks. Through comprehensive evaluation on three large cross-domain datasets and two small LLMs, we show that this approach improves execution accuracy by 3 to 7 percent, effectively aligning the performance of open-source models with their proprietary counterparts. Our proposed method has achieved 60.31% execution accuracy on Bird hold-out test set, which is the highest performance among methods using 7B parameter models.

Text-to-SQL benchmarks play a crucial role in evaluating the progress made in the field and the ranking of different models. However, accurately matching a model-generated SQL query to a reference SQL query in a benchmark fails for various reasons, such as underspecified natural language queries, inherent assumptions in both model-generated and reference queries, and the non-deterministic nature of SQL output under certain conditions. In this paper, we conduct an extensive study of several prominent cross-domain text-to-SQL benchmarks and re-evaluate some of the top-performing models within these benchmarks, by both manually evaluating the SQL queries and rewriting them in equivalent expressions. Our evaluation reveals that attaining a perfect performance on these benchmarks is unfeasible due to the multiple interpretations that can be derived from the provided samples. Furthermore, we find that the true performance of the models is underestimated and their relative performance changes after a re-evaluation. Most notably, our evaluation reveals a surprising discovery: a recent GPT4-based model surpasses the gold standard reference queries in the Spider benchmark in our human evaluation. This finding highlights the importance of interpreting benchmark evaluations cautiously, while also acknowledging the critical role of additional independent evaluations in driving advancements in the field.