Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 467–496 | Cite as

Adapting metric indexes for searching in multi-metric spaces

  • Benjamin Bustos
  • Sebastian Kreft
  • Tomáš Skopal


An important research issue in multimedia databases is the retrieval of similar objects. For most applications in multimedia databases, an exact search is not meaningful. Thus, much effort has been devoted to develop efficient and effective similarity search techniques. A recent approach that has been shown to improve the effectiveness of similarity search in multimedia databases resorts to the usage of combinations of metrics (i.e., a search on a multi-metric space). In this approach, the desirable contribution (weight) of each metric is chosen at query time. It follows that standard metric indexes cannot be directly used to improve the efficiency of dynamically weighted queries, because they assume that there is only one fixed distance function at indexing and query time. This paper presents a methodology for adapting metric indexes to multi-metric indexes, that is, to support similarity queries with dynamic combinations of metric functions. The adapted indexes are built with a single distance function and store partial distances to estimate the dynamically weighed distances. We present two novel indexes for multimetric space indexing, which are the result of the application of the proposed methodology.


Information storage and retrieval Content analysis and indexing methods 


  1. 1.
    Böhm C, Berchtold S, Keim DA (2001) Searching in high-dimensional spaces: index structures for improving the performance of multimedia databases. ACM Comput Surv 33(3):322–373. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brin S (1995) Near neighbor search in large metric spaces. In: Proc. of the 21th international conference on very large data bases (VLDB’95). Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp 574–584Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bustos B, Skopal T (2006) Dynamic similarity search in multi-metric spaces. In: Proc. 8th ACM SIGMM international workshop on multimedia information retrieval (MIR’06). ACM Press, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bustos B, Navarro G, Chávez E (2003) Pivot selection techniques for proximity searching in metric spaces. Pattern Recogn Lett 24(14):2357–2366zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bustos B, Keim D, Schreck T (2005) A pivot-based index structure for combination of feature vectors. In: Proc. 20th annual ACM symposium on applied computing, multimedia and visualization track (SAC-MV’05). ACM Press, pp 1180–1184Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bustos B, Keim D, Saupe D, Schreck T, Vranić D (2004) Automatic selection and combination of descriptors for effective 3D similarity search. In: Proc. IEEE international workshop on multimedia content-based analysis and retrieval (MCBAR’04). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 514–521Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bustos B, Keim D, Saupe D, Schreck T, Vranić D (2004) Using entropy impurity for improved 3D object similarity search. In: Proc. IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME’04). IEEE, pp 1303–1306Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bustos B, Keim D, Saupe D, Schreck T, Vranić D (2006) An experimental effectiveness comparison of methods for 3D similarity search. Int J Digit Libr 6(1):39–54 (Special issue on Multimedia Contents and Management in Digital Libraries)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chávez E, Navarro G (2005) A compact space decomposition for effective metric indexing. Pattern Recogn Lett 26(9):1363–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chávez E, Navarro G, Baeza-Yates R, Marroquín JL (2001) Searching in metric spaces. ACM Comput Surv 33(3):273–321. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ciaccia P, Patella M (2002) Searching in metric spaces with user-defined and approximate distances. ACM Trans Database Syst 27(4):398–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ciaccia P, Patella M, Zezula P (1997) M-tree: an efficient access method for similarity search in metric spaces. In: Proc. of the 23rd international conference on very large data bases (VLDB’97). Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp 426–435Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falchi F, Lucchese C, Perego R, Rabitti F (2008) CoPhIR: content-based photo image retrieval.
  14. 14.
    Hettich S, Bay SD (1999) The UCI KDD archive. University of California, Department of Information and Computer Science, Irvine, CA
  15. 15.
    Hjaltason GR, Samet H (1995) Ranking in spatial databases. In: Proc. of the 4th international symposium on advances in spatial databases (SSD’95). Springer, pp 83–95Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoksza D, Galgonek J (2009) Density-based classification of protein structures using iterative TM-score. In: Computational structure bioinformatics workshop (CSBW’09) (BIBM’09). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keim D (1999) Efficient geometry-based similarity search of 3D spatial databases. In: Proc. ACM international conference on management of data (SIGMOD’99). ACM Press, pp 419–430Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samet H (2005) Foundations of multidimensional and metric data structures (the Morgan Kaufmann series in computer graphics and geometric modeling). Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith T, Waterman M (1981) Identification of common molecular subsequences. J Mol Biol 147(1):195–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zezula P, Amato G, Dohnal V, Batko M (2005) Similarity search: the metric space approach (advances in database systems). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Bustos
    • 1
  • Sebastian Kreft
    • 1
  • Tomáš Skopal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Department of Software EngineeringCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations