skip to main content
10.1145/2661829.2661878acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

SharkDB: An In-Memory Column-Oriented Trajectory Storage

Authors Info & Claims
Published:03 November 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

The last decade has witnessed the prevalence of sensor and GPS technologies that produce a high volume of trajectory data representing the motion history of moving objects. However some characteristics of trajectories such as variable lengths and asynchronous sampling rates make it difficult to fit into traditional database systems that are disk-based and tuple-oriented. Motivated by the success of column store and recent development of in-memory databases, we try to explore the potential opportunities of boosting the performance of trajectory data processing by designing a novel trajectory storage within main memory. In contrast to most existing trajectory indexing methods that keep consecutive samples of the same trajectory in the same disk page, we partition the database into frames in which the positions of all moving objects at the same time instant are stored together and aligned in main memory. We found this column-wise storage to be surprisingly well suited for in-memory computing since most frames can be stored in highly compressed form, which is pivotal for increasing the memory throughput and reducing CPU-cache miss. The independence between frames also makes them natural working units when parallelizing data processing on a multi-core environment. Lastly we run a variety of common trajectory queries on both real and synthetic datasets in order to demonstrate advantages and study the limitations of our proposed storage.

References

  1. A. C. Ammann, M. Hanrahan, and R. Krishnamurthy. Design of a memory resident DBMS. In COMPCON, pages 54--58, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Baulier, P. Bohannon, S. Gogate, C. Gupta, and S. Haldar. DataBlitz storage manager: main-memory database performance for critical applications. In SIGMOD, pages 519--520, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Binnig, S. Hildenbrand, and F. Färber. Dictionary-based order-preserving string compression for main memory column stores. In SIGMOD, pages 283--296, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Bitton, M. Hanrahan, and C. Turbyfill. Performance of complex queries in main memory database systems. In ICDE, pages 72--81, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. A. Boncz, M. Zukowski, and N. Nes. Monetdb/x100: Hyper-pipelining query execution. In CIDR, pages 225--237, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. V. Botea, D. Mallett, M. A. Nascimento, and J. Sander. PIST: an efficient and practical indexing technique for historical spatio-temporal point data. GeoInformatica, 12(2):143--168, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. V. P. Chakka, A. C. Everspaugh, and J. M. Patel. Indexing large trajectory data sets with SETI. In CIDR, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. P. Cudre-Mauroux, E. Wu, and S. Madden. Trajstore: An adaptive storage system for very large trajectory data sets. In ICDE, pages 109--120, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. D. Gawlick and D. Kinkade. Varieties of concurrency control in IMS/VS fast path. DEB, 8(2):3--10, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Guttman. R-trees: a dynamic index structure for spatial searching. In SIGMOD, pages 47--57, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Héman, M. Zukowski, N. J. Nes, L. Sidirourgos, and P. Boncz. Positional update handling in column stores. In SIGMOD, pages 543--554, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. G. Ivanova, M. L. Kersten, N. J. Nes, and R. A. Gonçalves. An architecture for recycling intermediates in a column-store. TODS, 35(4):24:1--24:43, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Krueger, C. Kim, M. Grund, N. Satish, D. Schwalb, J. Chhugani, H. Plattner, P. Dubey, and A. Zeier. Fast updates on read-optimized databases using multi-core CPUs. PVLDB, 5(1):61--72, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. C. Lemke, K.-U. Sattler, F. Faerber, and A. Zeier. Speeding up queries in column stores. In DaWaK, pages 117--129, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. Manegold, P. Boncz, and M. L. Kersten. Generic database cost models for hierarchical memory systems. In PVLDB, pages 191--202, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. N. Meratnia and R. By. Spatiotemporal compression techniques for moving point objects. In EDBT, pages 765--782, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. D. Pfoser, C. S. Jensen, Y. Theodoridis, et al. Novel approaches to the indexing of moving object trajectories. In Proceedings of VLDB, pages 395--406, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. H. Plattner. A common database approach for OLTP and OLAP using an in-memory column database. In SIGMOD, pages 1--2, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. H. Plattner. SanssouciDb: An in-memory database for processing enterprise workloads. In BTW, volume 20, pages 2--21, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. Rao and K. A. Ross. Making B+- trees cache conscious in main memory. In SIGMOD, pages 475--486, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Rasetic, J. Sander, J. Elding, and M. A. Nascimento. A trajectory splitting model for efficient spatio-temporal indexing. In Proceedings of VLDB, pages 934--945, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. S. J. Simonas Saltenis, S. T. Leutenegger, and M. A. Lopez. Indexing the positions of continuously moving objects. In SIGMOD, pages 331--342, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Stonebraker, D. J. Abadi, A. Batkin, X. Chen, M. Cherniack, M. Ferreira, E. Lau, A. Lin, S. Madden, E. O'Neil, P. O'Neil, A. Rasin, N. Tran, and S. Zdonik. C-store: a column-oriented DBMS. In VLDB, pages 553--564, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. H. Su, K. Zheng, H. Wang, J. Huang, and X. Zhou. Calibrating trajectory data for similarity-based analysis. In SIGMOD, pages 833--844, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Y. Tao, D. Papadias, and J. Sun. The TPR*-tree: an optimized spatio-temporal access method for predictive queries. In PVLDB, pages 790--801, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. SharkDB: An In-Memory Column-Oriented Trajectory Storage

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CIKM '14: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
        November 2014
        2152 pages
        ISBN:9781450325981
        DOI:10.1145/2661829

        Copyright © 2014 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 3 November 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CIKM '14 Paper Acceptance Rate175of838submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader