Boolean Bounding Predicates for Spatial Access Methods
Tree-based multidimensional indexes are integral to efficient queryingin multimedia and GIS applications. These indexes frequently use shapes in internal tree nodes to describe the data stored in a subtree below. We show that the standard Minimum Bounding Rectangle descriptor can lead to significant inefficiency during tree traversal, due to false positives. We also observe that there is often space in internal nodes for richer, more accurate descriptors than rectangles.We propose exploitingt his free space to form subtree predicates based on simple boolean combinations of standard descriptors such as rectangles. Since the problem of choosing these boolean bounding predicates is NP-complete, we implemented and tested several heuristics for tuningthe bounding predicates on an index node, and several heuristics for decidingwh ich nodes in the index to improve when available tuning time is limited. We present experiments over a variety of real and synthetic data sets, examiningth e performance benefit of the various tuninghe uristics. Our experiments show that up to 50% of the unnecessary I/Os caused by imprecise subtree predicates can be eliminated usingthe boolean bounding predicates chosen by our algorithms.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.N. Beckmann, Kriegel H.-P., R. Schneider, and B. Seeger. The R-tree: An efficient and robust access method for points and rectangles. In Proc. of the ACM-SIGMOD Int’l Conference on Management of Data, pages 322–331, 1990.Google Scholar
- 3.M. de Berg, M. van Kreveld, M. Overmars, and O. Schwarzkopf. Computational Geometry: Algorithms and Applications, 2nd Ed. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
- 4.J. M. Hellerstein, J. Naughton, and A. Pfeffer. Generalized search trees for database systems. In Proc. of the 21st VLDB Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, 1995.Google Scholar
- 5.K. Hildrum and M. Thomas. Jagged bite problem NP-complete construction. Technical Report UCB//CSD-99-1060, University of California at Berkeley, 1999.Google Scholar
- 6.T. Johnson and D. Shasha. B-trees with inserts and deletes: Why free-at-empty is better than merge-at-half. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 47:45–76, August 1993.Google Scholar
- 7.N. Katayama and S. Satoh. The SR-tree: An index structure for high dimensional nearest neighbor queries. In Proc. of the ACM-SIGMOD Int’l Conference on Management of Data, pages 369–380, Tucson, AZ, May 1997.Google Scholar
- 8.M. Kornacker, M. Shah, and J. M. Hellerstein. An analysis framework for access methods. Technical Report UCB//CSD-99-1051, University of California at Berkeley, 1999.Google Scholar
- 9.S. T. Leutenegger, M. A. Lopez, and J. Edgington. STR: A simple and efficient algorithm for R-tree packing. In Proc. of the 12th Int’l Conference on Data Engineering, pages 497–506, New Orleans, LA, April 1997.Google Scholar
- 11.W. Press, S. Teukolsky, W. Vettering, and B. Flannery. Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 12.M. Thomas and J. M. Hellerstein. Boolean boundingpre dicates for spatial access methods. Technical Report UCB//CSD-01-1174, University of California at Berkeley, 2002.Google Scholar
- 13.C. Zou and B. Salzberg. On-line reorganization of sparsely-populated B+-trees. In Proc. of the ACM-SIGMOD Int’l Conference on Management of Data, Montreal, Canada, June 1996.Google Scholar