Two different techniques of browsing through a collection of spatial objects stored in an R-tree spatial data structure on the basis of their distances from an arbitrary spatial query object are compared. The conventional approach is one that makes use of a k-nearest neighbor algorithm where k is known prior to the invocation of the algorithm. Thus if m k neighbors are needed, the k-nearest neighbor algorithm needs to be reinvoked for m neighbors, thereby possibly performing some redundant computations. The second approach is incremental in the sense that having obtained the k nearest neighbors, the k + 1 st neighbor can be obtained without having to calculate the k + 1nearest neighbors from scratch. The incremental approach finds use when processing complex queries where one of the conditions involves spatial proximity (e.g., the nearest city to Chicago with population greater than a million), in which case a query engine can make use of a pipelined strategy. A general incremental nearest neighbor algorithm is presented that is applicable to a large class of hierarchical spatial data structures. This algorithm is adapted to the R-tree and its performance is compared to an existing k-nearest neighbor algorithm for R-trees [45]. Experiments show that the incremental nearest neighbor algorithm significantly outperforms the k-nearest neighbor algorithm for distance browsing queries in a spatial database that uses the R-tree as a spatial index. Moreover, the incremental nearest neighbor algorithm also usually outperforms the k-nearest neighbor algorithm when applied to the k-nearest neighbor problem for the R-tree, although the improvement is not nearly as large as for distance browsing queries. In fact, we prove informally that, at any step in its execution, the incremental nearest neighbor algorithm is optimal with respect to the spatial data structure that is employed. Furthermore, based on some simplifying assumptions, we prove that in two dimensions, the number of distance computations and leaf nodes accesses made by the algorithm for finding k neighbors is Ok + p k.

Similarity search is a very important operation in multimedia databases and other database applications involving complex objects, and involves finding objects in a data set S similar to a query object q, based on some similarity measure. In this article, we focus on methods for similarity search that make the general assumption that similarity is represented with a distance metric d . Existing methods for handling similarity search in this setting typically fall into one of two classes. The first directly indexes the objects based on distances (distance-based indexing), while the second is based on mapping to a vector space (mapping-based approach). The main part of this article is dedicated to a survey of distance-based indexing methods, but we also briefly outline how search occurs in mapping-based methods. We also present a general framework for performing search based on distances, and present algorithms for common types of queries that operate on an arbitrary "search hierarchy." These algorithms can be applied on each of the methods presented, provided a suitable search hierarchy is defined.

Abstract-Complex data types-such as images, documents, DNA sequences, etc.-are becoming increasingly important in modern database applications. A typical query in many of these applications seeks to find objects that are similar to some target object, where (dis)similarity is defined by some distance function. Often, the cost of evaluating the distance between two objects is very high. Thus, the number of distance evaluations should be kept at a minimum, while (ideally) maintaining the quality of the result. One way to approach this goal is to embed the data objects in a vector space so that the distances of the embedded objects approximates the actual distances. Thus, queries can be performed (for the most part) on the embedded objects. In this paper, we are especially interested in examining the issue of whether or not the embedding methods will ensure that no relevant objects are left out (i.e., there are no false dismissals and, hence, the correct result is reported). Particular attention is paid to the SparseMap, FastMap, and MetricMap embedding methods. SparseMap is a variant of Lipschitz embeddings, while FastMap and MetricMap are inspired by dimension reduction methods for Euclidean spaces (using KLT or the related PCA and SVD). We show that, in general, none of these embedding methods guarantee that queries on the embedded objects have no false dismissals, while also demonstrating the limited cases in which the guarantee does hold. Moreover, we describe a variant of SparseMap that allows queries with no false dismissals. In addition, we show that with FastMap and MetricMap, the distances of the embedded objects can be much greater than the actual distances. This makes it impossible (or at least impractical) to modify FastMap and MetricMap to guarantee no false dismissals.

Two new spatial join operations, distance join and distance semijoin, are introduced where the join output is ordered by the distance between the spatial attribute values of the joined tuples. Incremental algorithms are presented for computing these operations, which can be usedin a pipelined fashion, thereby obviating the need to wait for their completion when only a few tuples are needed. The algorithms can be used with a large class of hierarchical spatial data structures and arbitrary spatial data types in any dimensions. In addition, any distance metric may be employed. A performance study using Rtrees shows that the incremental algorithms outperform non-incremental approaches by an order of magnitude if only a small part of the result is needed, while the penalty, if any, for the incremental processing is modest if the entire join result is required.

No abstract