Processing complex similarity queries with distance-based access methods

  • Paolo Ciaccia
  • Marco Patella
  • Pavel Zezula
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1377)

Abstract

Efficient evaluation of similarity queries is one of the basic requirements for advanced multimedia applications. In this paper, we consider the relevant case where complex similarity queries are defined through a generic language L and whose predicates refer to a single feature F. Contrary to the language level which deals only with similarity scores, the proposed evaluation process is based on distances between feature values — known spatial or metric indexes use distances to evaluate predicates. The proposed solution suggests that the index should process complex queries as a whole, thus evaluating multiple similarity predicates at a time. The flexibility of our approach is demonstrated by considering three different similarity languages, and showing how the M-tree access method has been extended to this purpose. Experimental results clearly show that performance of the extended M-tree is consistently better than that of state-of-the-art search algorithms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BO97]
    T. Bozkaya and M. Ozsoyoglu. Distance-based indexing for high-dimensional metric spaces. In Proceedings of the 1997 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 357–368, Tucson, AZ, May 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [Bri95]
    S. Brin. Near neighbor search in large metric spaces. In Proceedings of the 21st VLDB International Conference, pages 574–584, Zurich, Switzerland, September 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [CG96]
    S. Chaudhuri and L. Gravano. Optimizing queries over multimedia repositories. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 91–102, Quebec, Canada, June 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [Chi94]
    T. Chiueh. Content-based image indexing. In Proceedings of the 20th VLDB International Conference, pages 582–593, Santiago, Chile, September 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [CPZ97]
    P. Ciaccia, M. Patella, and P. Zezula. M-tree: An efficient access method for similarity search in metric spaces. In Proceedings of the 23rd VLDB International Conference, pages 426–435, Athens, Greece, August 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [Fag96]
    R. Fagin. Combining fuzzy information from multiple systems. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 216–226, Montreal, Canada, June 1996.Google Scholar
  7. [FS96]
    R. Fagin and L. Stockmeyer. Relaxing the triangle inequality in pattern matching. Research Report RJ 10031, IBM, June 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [FW97]
    R. Fagin and E.L. Wimmers. Incorporating user preferences in multimedia queries. In Proceedings of the 6th ICDT International Conference, pages 247–261, Delphi, Greece, January 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [Gut84]
    A. Guttman. R-trees: A dynamic index structure for spatial searching. In Proceedings of the 1984 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 47–57, Boston, MA, June 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [Har92]
    D. Harman. Relevance feedback and other query modification techniques. In W.B. Frakes and R. Baeza-Yates, editors, Information Retrieval: Data Structures and Algorithms, chapter 11, pages 241–263. Prentice Hall PTR, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [HM95]
    A. Henrich and J. Möller. Extending a spatial access structure to support additional standard attributes. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Advances in Spatial Databases (SSD'95), volume 951 of LNCS, pages 132–151, Zurich, Switzerland, August 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. [HNP95]
    J.M. Hellerstein, J.F. Naughton, and A. Pfeffer. Generalized search trees for database systems. In Proceedings of the 21st VLDB International Conference, pages 562–573, Zurich, Switzerland, September 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [Jai96]
    R. Jain. Infoscopes: Multimedia information systems. In B. Furht, editor, Multimedia Systems and Techniques, chapter 7, pages 217–253. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [JD88]
    A.K. Jain and R.C. Dubes. Algorithms for Clustering Data. Prentice-Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [KY95]
    G.J. Klir and B. Yuan. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic. Prentice Hall PTR, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [RKV95]
    N. Roussopoulos, S. Kelley, and F. Vincent. Nearest neighbor queries. In Proceedings of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 71–79, San Jose, CA, May 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [SK97]
    T. Seidl and H.-P. Kriegel. Efficient user-adaptable similarity search in large multimedia databases. In Proceedings of the 23rd VLDB International Conference, pages 506–515, Athens, Greece, August 1997.Google Scholar
  18. [Zad65]
    L.A. Zadeh. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8:338–353, 1965.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Ciaccia
    • 1
  • Marco Patella
    • 1
  • Pavel Zezula
    • 2
  1. 1.DEIS - CSITE-CNRUniversity of BolognaItaly
  2. 2.IEI-CNRPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations