Jackpine: A benchmark to evaluate spatial database performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume of spatial data generated and consumed is rising exponentially and new applications are emerging as the costs of storage, processing power and network bandwidth continue to decline. Database support for spatial operations is fast becoming a necessity rather than a niche feature provided by a few products. However, the spatial functionality offered by current commercial and open-source relational databases differs significantly in terms of available features, true geodetic support, spatial functions and indexing. Benchmarks play a crucial role in evaluating the functionality and performance of a particular database, both for application users and developers, and for the database developers themselves. In contrast to transaction processing, however, there is no standard, widely used benchmark for spatial database operations. In this paper, we present a spatial database benchmark called Jackpine. Our benchmark is portable (it can support any database with a JDBC driver implementation) and includes both micro benchmarks and macro workload scenarios. The micro benchmark component tests basic spatial operations in isolation; it consists of queries based on the Dimensionally Extended 9-intersection model of topological relations and queries based on spatial analysis functions. Each macro workload includes a series of queries that are based on a common spatial data application. These macro scenarios include map search and browsing, geocoding, reverse geocoding, flood risk analysis, land information management and toxic spill analysis. We use Jackpine to evaluate the spatial features in 2 open source databases and 1 commercial offering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".