Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T18:24:15.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Large Catalogue Query Performance in Relational Databases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

Robert A. Power
Robert A. Power*
Affiliation:
CSIRO ICT Centre, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. Email: robert.power@csiro.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The performance of the mysql and oracle database systems have been compared for a selection of astronomy queries using large catalogues of up to a billion objects. The queries tested are those expected from the astronomy community: general database queries, cone searches, neighbour finding and cross matching. The catalogue preparation, sql query formulation and database performance is presented. Most of the general queries perform adequately when appropriate indexes are present in the database. Each system performs well for cone search queries when the Hierarchical Triangular Mesh spatial index is used. Neighbour finding and cross matching are not well supported in a database environment when compared to software specifically developed to solve these problems.

Keywords

astronomical data bases: miscellaneouscatalogssurveys
Type
Research Article
Information
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , 2007 , pp. 13 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Australia 2007

References

Devereux, D., Abel, D. J., Power, R. A. & Lamb, P. R., 2005, ASP Conf. Ser. 347, ADASS XIV, Eds. Shopbell, P., Britton, M. & Ebert, R. (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 346 Google Scholar
Gaede, V. & Gunther, O., 1998, ACM Computing Surveys Volume 30 Number 2, 170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J., Slutz, D., Szalay, A. S., Thakar, I. A., vandenBerg, J., Kunszt, P. Z. & Stoughton, C., 2002, Microsoft Technical Report MSR-TR-2001-01Google Scholar
Gray, J., Szalay, A. S., Thakar, A., Fekete, G., O'Mullane, W., Heber, A. & Rots, A., 2004, Microsoft Technical Report MSR-TR-2004-32Google Scholar
Hambly, N. C., et al., 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunszt, P. Z., Szalay, A. S., Csabai, I. & Thakar, A. R., 2000, ASP Conf. Ser. 216, ADASS IX, Eds. Manset, N., Veillet, C. & Crabtree, D. (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 141 Google Scholar
Monet, D. G., et al., 2003, AJ, 125, 984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, R. A., 2006, CSIRO ICT Centre TR 06/209Google Scholar
Preparata, F. & Shamos, M., 1985, Computational Geometry an Introduction (NY: Springer)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrutskie, M. F., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinnott, R. W., 1984, S&T, 68(2), 159 Google Scholar
Szalay, A. S., Gray, J., Thakar, A., Kunszt, P. Z., Malik, T., Raddick, J., Stoughton, C. & vandenBerg, J., 2000, ACM SIGMOD, Eds. Chen, W., Naughton, J. F. & Bernstein, P. A., 451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar