Scalable Big Spatial Data Processing with SQL Query Compilation and Distributed Morsel-driven Parallelism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid rise in spatial data volumes from diverse sources necessitate efficient spatial data processing capability. Although most relational databases support spatial extensions of SQL query features, they offer limited scalability. Traditional relational database query processing follows a pull-based (or tuple-at-a-time) model of query processing. This is not efficient for processing large volumes of data. A number of specialized spatial data processing systems were developed that extend cluster computing frameworks, such as Spark and Hadoop. However, these systems are characterized by limited or no support for spatial SQL query execution. The few systems that support SQL querying, suffer from the overheads of the pull-based model.We present a compilation-based distributed SQL query processing system. It follows a data-centric query compilation approach that takes a SQL query and generates distributed C++ (UPC++) based physical query plans. The generated code is compiled and executed on a distributed in-memory high performance framework based on the Partitioned Global Address Space (PGAS) paradigm. We also introduce morsel-driven parallelism for scalable spatial query execution in a distributed runtime. We conduct experimental evaluation of our system with two real-world datasets on a number of spatial query workloads. Experimental results demonstrate that our system performs significantly better than a leading spatial big data system Apache Sedona and distributed parallel relational database Citus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".