Reinforcement Learning to Optimize ETL Pipelines
Main Article Content
Abstract
Extract–Transform–Load (ETL) pipelines remain a critical component of enterprise data infrastructure, supporting analytics, reporting, and machine learning by preparing raw data for downstream consumption. As organizations scale, these pipelines must process increasingly diverse datasets while adapting to shifting workloads, irregular input patterns, and evolving business requirements. Conventional optimization approaches rely on static rules, hand-tuned configurations, or heuristic scheduling, all of which struggle to maintain efficiency when system behavior changes over time. Manual tuning becomes particularly difficult in large environments where hundreds of pipelines compete for shared compute resources and experience unpredictable variations in data volume and schema complexity. This paper presents a reinforcement learning (RL)–based framework designed to autonomously optimize ETL execution without human intervention. The system formulates ETL optimization as a sequential decision-making problem, where an RL agent learns to select transformation ordering, resource allocation strategies, caching policies, and execution priorities based on the current operational state. State representations incorporate metadata signals, historical performance trends, data quality indicators, and real-time workload statistics. Through iterative reward-driven learning, the agent gradually identifies strategies that improve throughput, reduce processing cost, and stabilize pipeline performance across heterogeneous environments. The framework was evaluated in production-like settings spanning financial services, retail analytics, and telecommunications data operations. Across these domains, the RL-driven system reduced end-to-end execution time by 33%, lowered compute utilization costs by 27%, and increased data quality throughput by 41%. These results highlight the promise of reinforcement learning as a foundation for building adaptive, self-optimizing ETL systems that respond to operational variability and reduce the need for manual intervention. The work demonstrates a viable pathway toward autonomous data engineering platforms capable of supporting large-scale enterprise workloads.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
T. P. Campbell, X. Sun, V. H. Patel, C. Sanz, D. Morgan, and G. Dantas, “The microbiome and resistome of chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans across host lifestyle and geography,” ISME J., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1584–1599, 2020.
L. Huang, Z. Liang, N. Sreekumar, S. Kaushik, A. Chandra, and J. Weissman, “Towards elasticity in heterogeneous edge-dense environments,” in 2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2022, pp. 403–413.
H. Ouyang et al., “Resilience building and collaborative governance for climate change adaptation in response to a new state of more frequent and intense extreme weather events,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 162–169, 2023.
S. K. Gupta and S. Singh, “Energy efficient dynamic sink multi level heterogeneous extended distributed clustering routing for scalable WSN: ML-HEDEEC,” Wirel. Pers. Commun., vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 559–585, 2023.
D. J. Hernandez, A. S. David, E. S. Menges, C. A. Searcy, and M. E. Afkhami, “Environmental stress destabilizes microbial networks,” ISME J., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1722–1734, 2021.
R.-J. Qin et al., “NeoRL: A near real-world benchmark for offline reinforcement learning,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 35, pp. 24753–24765, 2022.
M. D. Johnson et al., “API continuous cooling and antisolvent crystallization for kinetic impurity rejection in cGMP manufacturing,” Org. Process Res. Dev., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1284–1351, 2021.
K. E. Silver and R. F. Levant, “An appraisal of the American Psychological Association’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.,” Psychotherapy, vol. 56, no. 3, p. 347, 2019.
R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement learning: An introduction, vol. 1, no. 1. MIT press Cambridge, 1998.
A. Hoffman et al., “Patients’ and providers’ needs and preferences when considering fertility preservation before cancer treatment: decision-making needs assessment,” JMIR Form. Res., vol. 5, no. 6, p. e25083, 2021.
D. Silver, C. Childress, M. Lee, A. Slez, and F. Dias, “Balancing categorical conventionality in music,” Am. J. Sociol., vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 224–286, 2022.