# Encyclopedia of Database Systems

Living Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

# Spatial Matching Problems

• Cheng Long
• Raymond Chi-Wing Wong
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7993-3_80711-1

## Definition

A matching is a mapping from the elements of one set to the elements of another set such that each element in one set is mapped to at most one element in another set. For example, assume two sets of objects P = { p1, p2, p3} and O = { o1, o2, o3}. Then, {(p1, o1), (p2, o2), (p3, o3)} is a matching with three pairs, but {(p1, o1), (p1, o2)} is not a matching since p1 is involved in two pairs. In general, the number of possible matchings is exponential to the cardinality of P and O; e.g., if | P | = | O | = n, there are n! matchings with n pairs. Usually, among all possible matchings, the aim is to find one that optimizes/satisfies a certain criterion.

Let c(p, o) be the cost of matching p ∈ P with o ∈ O. Optimal matching [13] minimizes the sum of the costs of all pairs. Bottleneck matching [7] minimizes the maximum cost of any pair. Fair matching, also known as the stable marriage problem, returns a matching in which the following conditions cannot hold at the same time: (i)...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

1. 1.
Abraham D, Cechlarova K, Manlove D, Mehlhorn K. Pareto optimality in house allocation problems. In: 15th international symposium on algorithms and computation, Hong Kong. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3341; 2004. p. 3–15.Google Scholar
2. 2.
Ahuja RK, Magnanti TL, Orlin JB. Network flows: theory, algorithms, and applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1993.
3. 3.
Burkard RE, Dell’Amico M, Martello S. Assignment problems. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial Mathematics; 2009.
4. 4.
Efrat A, Itai A, Katz MJ. Geometry helps in bottleneck matching and related problems. Algorithmica. 2001;31(1):1–28.
5. 5.
Gabow HN, Tarjan RE. Algorithms for two bottleneck optimization problems. J Algorithms, 1988;9(3):411–17.
6. 6.
Gale D, Shapley L. College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am. Math. Mon. 1962;69:9–15.
7. 7.
Gross O. The bottleneck assignment problem. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation; 1959.Google Scholar
8. 8.
Hou UL, Yiu ML, Mouratidis K, Mamoulis N. Capacity constrained assignment in spatial databases. In: SIGMOD, Vancouver; 2008.Google Scholar
9. 9.
Irving RW, Kavitha T, Mehlhorn K, Michail D, Paluch K. Rank-maximal matchings. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; 2004. p. 68–75.Google Scholar
10. 10.
Long C, Wong RC-W, Yu PS, Jiang M. On optimal worst-case matching. In: SIGMOD, New York; 2013.Google Scholar
11. 11.
Mehlhorn K. Assigning papers to referees. In: Automata, languages and programming, Rhodes; 2009. p. 1–2.Google Scholar
12. 12.
Mouratidis K, Mamoulis N. Continuous spatial assignment of moving users. VLDB J. 2010;19(2): 141–60.
13. 13.
Munkres J. Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems. J Soc Ind Appl Math. 1957;5(1):32–8.
14. 14.
Wong RC-W, Tao Y, Fu AW-C, Xiao X. On efficient spatial matching. In VLDB, Vienna; 2007.Google Scholar