2011 IEEE 27th International Conference on Data Engineering 2011
DOI: 10.1109/icde.2011.5767869
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Similarity measures for multidimensional data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…• No inherent relationships: A meaningful layout can be constructed based on similarity relationships established through defining a suitable similarity measure, or distance function, which is chosen or designed according to the type of information [58], [59], [60], [61].…”
Section: Facet-based Arrangement Of Story Contentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• No inherent relationships: A meaningful layout can be constructed based on similarity relationships established through defining a suitable similarity measure, or distance function, which is chosen or designed according to the type of information [58], [59], [60], [61].…”
Section: Facet-based Arrangement Of Story Contentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…24 Glyph sorting through the use of similarity indices can be helpful if one wants to select a polyline glyph and reorder the remaining glyphs with respect to the similarity to the selected glyph. Many solutions exist, 32 such as the commonly used distance-based similarity measures, 32,33 examples of which are the Euclidean distance in n -dimensional space 34 and the city-block metrics. 35 For certain reasons, however, these two approaches might not fit the purpose of the visual search in polyline glyphs because the information on whether a glyph is generally “bigger” or “smaller” than the one selected might also be of interest.…”
Section: The Polyline Glyphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the former case, the query can be evaluated either fully (Stefanidis et al, 2009;Drosou and Pitoura, 2011) or partially (Giacometti et al, 2009). In this category we also include an approach for measuring similarity between multidimensional cubes (Baikousi, Rogkakos and Vassiliadis, 2011), because obviously an OLAP query returns a multidimensional cube. -The statistics used by the query optimizer, like table sizes and attribute cardinalities (Ghosh et al, 2002).…”
Section: Query Comparison Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…-Following requirement 1, we solely rely on query expressions to derive query representations. Then we exclude the approaches based on query evaluation (Giacometti et al, 2009;Stefanidis et al, 2009;Drosou and Pitoura, 2011), those depending on database instances (Chatzopoulou et al, 2009;Chatzopoulou et al, 2011;Agrawal et al, 2006;Baikousi et al, 2011), and those using query logs (Aouiche et al, 2006;Akbarnejad et al, 2010;Stefanidis et al, 2009). -Our goal is not query optimization, so we drop the approaches aimed at optimization like Ghosh et al, 2002. In that particular work, the idea is to reuse execution plans, that heavily rely on "physical" properties (like statistics and presence of indexes); thus, query similarity is more related to how queries are evaluated than to what they mean to users.…”
Section: Query Comparison Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%