Can BlazeSQL answer questions from connected data?
BlazeSQL answered three connected-data questions correctly and missed one. It got the order count, the month comparison, and the August total right, but the product-ranking case returned the wrong item and unit count after using a window that ran one day too far.
3 of 4 test cases passed · 1 failed
Every test case in this scenario has a result.
The 4 test cases
Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above is based on these test cases.
Order count in a defined periodPassEvidence
“As of September 2, 2026, how many orders were placed in the last 30 days?”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proof.
| ✓ | Expected: 57 ordersFound: It showed 57 orders. |
| ✓ | Expected: 30 days ending 2 September 2026Found: It stated the 30-day window ending 2 September 2026. |
It had to give the order count for the 30 days ending 2 September 2026. It returned 57 and stated that ending date, so this case passes.
Order-count difference between two monthsPassEvidence
“As of September 2, 2026, how many more orders were placed in August 2026 than in July 2026?”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proof.
As of September 2, 2026, 38 orders were placed in August vs. 21 in July — that's 17 more orders in August!
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
| ✓ | Expected: 17 more orders in AugustFound: It showed a difference of 17. |
| ✓ | Expected: August had more orders than JulyFound: It said August had 38 and July had 21, so August was higher. |
It had to compare August and July order counts as of 2 September 2026. It gave the 17-order difference and said August was higher, so the case passes.
Extra date bound. It added an outer before-September-2 filter, but the month ranges already ended earlier, so it did not change the result.
Total order value in a calendar monthPassEvidence
“As of September 2, 2026, what was the combined total amount of all orders placed in August 2026?”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proof.
The combined total amount of all orders placed in August 2026 was $20,697.92.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
| ✓ | Expected: 20,697.92Found: It showed $20,697.92. |
| ✓ | Expected: August 2026, all ordersFound: It said August 1 up to but not including September 1 and summed all matching orders. |
It had to sum all August 2026 orders as of 2 September 2026. It returned the exact total and stated the August scope, so the case passes.
Top product by units ordered in a monthFailEvidence
“As of September 2, 2026, which product had the most units ordered in August 2026, and how many units?”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proof.
| ✗ | Expected: Alder bookshelf, 5-tierFound: It named Wool accent rug, 4x6 instead. |
| ✗ | Expected: 9 unitsFound: It returned 10 units. |
It had to name the top product for August 2026 and report its units. The answer used a window that ran one day too far, so it returned the wrong product and 10 units instead of 9; that is why this case fails.
Configuration and setup
How this tool was set up for the run and what the test needed in place. Each row is a fact from the run's records; a fact the records do not hold is left out, not guessed.
How this scenario is graded
How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.
Each test case gets one result per tool: Pass, Fail or Not gradable. A test case we haven't run yet shows Untested. There are no partial results.
- Pass: the tool did everything the test expected, and nothing it said contradicts the correct answer.
- Fail: at least one expected behaviour clearly didn't happen; the test case's result says which one and quotes the tool.
- Not gradable: our evidence couldn't settle the outcome (for example a record we needed is missing). It is never counted as a fail, and the test case's result says what's missing.
Where this sits in the benchmark
This page is one cell of a larger study: one tool, one scenario. Only this benchmark's frame appears here.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | AI Database Agents → | 28 scenarios · 11 tools |
| Capability | Question Answering → | |
| Scenario | The answer is available in the connected data → | |
| Tool | BlazeSQL → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · BlazeSQL product page →
History of this result
What has happened to this result since it was first published. Runs and grades are never overwritten: a retest or a re-grade publishes a new result and keeps the earlier one readable.
Act on this result
Nothing filed here edits the run or the grade. A challenge opens a review, and a review can produce a new run or a re-grade — which becomes the current result and leaves this one in the history.
You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.
Agree →Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.
Disagree →Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.
Report an issue →Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.
Vendor notice →The same record is available as structured data through the AI Demos MCP server, with the counts, the coverage and every per-test-case reason carried as fields.
Verify the proof files
These files support this result. Open a file to inspect the original evidence.
File fingerprints (SHA-256)
A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.