Indexing Temporal Relations for Range-Duration Queries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal information plays a crucial role in many database applications, however support for queries on such data is limited. We present an index structure, termed RD-index, to support range-duration queries over interval timestamped relations, which constrain both the range of the tuples’ positions on the timeline and their duration. RD-index is a grid structure in the two-dimensional space, representing the position on the timeline and the duration of timestamps, respectively. Instead of using a regular grid, we consider the data distribution for the construction of the grid in order to ensure that each grid cell contains approximately the same number of intervals. RD-index features provable bounds on the running time of all the operations, allow for a simple implementation, and supports very predictable query performance. We benchmark our solution on a variety of datasets and query workloads, investigating both the query rate and the behavior of the individual queries. The results show that RD-index performs better than the baselines on range-duration queries, for which it is explicitly designed. Furthermore, it outperforms state of the art indexes also on mixed workloads containing queries that constrain either only the duration or the range along with range-duration queries. Finally, the size of the RD-index is in all settings smaller than the competitors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".