MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046886793

Materialized views for count aggregates of spatial data

2012· article· en· W3046886793 on OpenAlexaff
Anan Yaagoub, Xiaoyang Liu, Goce Trajcevski, Egemen Tanin, Peter Scheuermann

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggregate (composite)Online analytical processingComputer scienceMaterialized viewQuadtreeSpace (punctuation)Spatial analysisIndex (typography)Data miningSpatial databaseData warehouseDatabaseTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsWorld Wide WebStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the problem of efficient processing of count aggregate queries for spatial objects in OLAP systems. One of the main issues affecting the efficient spatial analysis is the, so called, distinct counting problem. The core of the problem is due to the fact that spatial objects such as lakes, rivers, etc... - and their representations - have extents. We investigate the trade-offs that arise when (semi) materialized views of the count aggregate are maintained in a hierarchical index and propose two data structures that are based on the Quadtree indexes: Fully Materialize Views (FMV) and Partially Materialized Views (PMV). Each aims at achieving a balance between the: (1) benefits in terms of response time for range queries; (2) overheads in terms of extra space and update costs. Our experiments on real datasets (Minnesota lakes) demonstrate that the proposed approaches are beneficial for the first aspect achieving up to five times speed-up, while incurring relatively minor overheads with respect to the second one, when compared to the naive approach. © 2012 Springer-Verlag.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLecture notes in computer scienceSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207