UNIT-5

INDEXING AND
HASHING
BASIC CONCEPTS
 Indexing mechanisms used to speed up access to desired data.
• E.g., author catalog in library
 Search Key - attribute to set of attributes used to look up records
in a file.
 An index file consists of records (called index entries) of the
form Index files are typically much smaller than the original file

search-key pointer

 Two basic kinds of indices:

• Ordered indices: search keys are stored in sorted order
• Hash indices: search keys are distributed uniformly across
“buckets” using a “hash function”.
 INDEX EVALUATION METRICS
 Access types
• Records with a specified value in the attribute
• Records with an attribute value falling in a specified range of values.
 Access time
• The time it takes to find a particular data item, or set of items, using the
technique in question.
 Insertion time
• The time it takes to insert a new data item. This value includes the time it
takes to find the correct place to insert the new data item, as well as the
time it takes to update the index structure.
 Deletion time
• The time it takes to delete a data item. This value includes the time it takes
to find the item to be deleted, as well as the time it takes to update the
index structure.
 Space overhead
• The additional space occupied by an index structure. Provided that the
amount of additional space is moderate, it is usually worthwhile to sacrifice
the space to achieve improved performance.
ORDERED INDICES

 In an ordered index, index entries are stored sorted on the search

key value.
 Clustering index: in a sequentially ordered file, the index whose
search key specifies the sequential order of the file.
• Also called primary index
• The search key of a primary index is usually but not necessarily
the primary key.
 Secondary index: an index whose search key specifies an order
different from the sequential order of the file. Also called
non-clustering index.
 Index-sequential file: sequential file ordered on a search key, with
a clustering index on the search key.
ORDERED INDICES

 Sequential file for instructor records

DENSE INDEX FILES

 Dense index — Index record appears for every search-key value in

the file.
 E.g. index on ID attribute of instructor relation
DENSE INDEX FILES (CONT.)

 Dense index on dept_name, with instructor file sorted on

dept_name
 SPARSE INDEX FILES

 Sparse Index: contains index records for only some search-key

values.
• Applicable when records are sequentially ordered on search-key
 To locate a record with search-key value K we:
• Find index record with largest search-key value < K
• Search file sequentially starting at the record to which the index
record points
 SPARSE INDEX FILES (CONT.)
 Compared to dense indices:
• Less space and less maintenance overhead for insertions and deletions.
• Generally slower than dense index for locating records.
 Good tradeoff:
• for clustered index: sparse index with an index entry for every block in
file, corresponding to least search-key value in the block.

• For un-clustered index: sparse index on top of dense index (multilevel index)
 SECONDARY INDICES EXAMPLE
Secondary index on salary field of instructor

Index record points to a bucket that contains pointers to all the actual
records with that particular search-key value.
Secondary indices have to be dense
 MULTILEVEL INDEX

 If index does not fit in memory, access becomes

expensive.
 Solution: treat index kept on disk as a sequential file and
construct a sparse index on it.
• outer index – a sparse index of the basic index
• inner index – the basic index file
 If even outer index is too large to fit in main memory, yet
another level of index can be created, and so on.
 Indices at all levels must be updated on insertion or
deletion from the file.
MULTILEVEL INDEX (CONT.)
INDICES ON MULTIPLE KEYS

 Composite search key

 A search key containing more than one attribute is
referred to as a composite search key.
• E.g., index on instructor relation on attributes (name,
ID)
• Values are sorted lexicographically
 E.g. (John, 12121) < (John, 13514) and
(John, 13514) < (Peter, 11223)
• Can query on just name, or on (name, ID)
Example :
select ID
from instructor
where dept name = 'Finance' and salary = 80000;
EXAMPLE OF B+-TREE
 B+-TREE INDEX FILES (CONT.)
A B+-tree is a rooted tree satisfying the following properties:
 All paths from root to leaf are of the same length
 Each node that is not a root or a leaf has between n/2 and n
children.
 A leaf node has between (n–1)/2 and n–1 values
 Special cases:
• If the root is not a leaf, it has at least 2 children.
• If the root is a leaf (that is, there are no other nodes in the tree),
it can have between 0 and (n–1) values.
B+-TREE NODE STRUCTURE

 Typical node

• Ki are the search-key values

• Pi are pointers to children (for non-leaf nodes) or pointers to
records or buckets of records (for leaf nodes).
 The search-keys in a node are ordered
K1 < K2 < K3 < . . . < Kn–1
(Initially assume no duplicate keys, address duplicates later)
LEAF NODES IN B+-TREES
Properties of a leaf node:
 For i = 1, 2, . . ., n–1, pointer Pi points to a file record with search-key value Ki,
 If Li, Lj are leaf nodes and i < j, Li’s search-key values are less than or equal to
Lj’s search-key values
 Pn points to next leaf node in search-key order
 NON-LEAF NODES IN B+-TREES
 Non leaf nodes form a multi-level sparse index on the leaf nodes. For a non-leaf
node with m pointers:
 The structure of nonleaf nodes is the same as that for leaf nodes, except that all
pointers are pointers to tree nodes.
 A nonleaf node may hold up to n pointers and must hold at least ⌈n∕2⌉ pointers.
The number of pointers in a node is called the fanout of the node.
 Nonleaf nodes are also referred to as internal nodes.
• All the search-keys in the subtree to which P1 points are less than K1
• For 2  i  n – 1, all the search-keys in the subtree to which Pi points have
values greater than or equal to Ki–1 and less than Ki
• All the search-keys in the subtree to which Pn points have values greater
than or equal to Kn–1
• General structure
EXAMPLE OF B+-TREE
 B+-tree for instructor file (n = 6)
 Leaf nodes must have between 3 and 5 values
((n–1)/2 and n –1, with n = 6).
 Non-leaf nodes other than root must have between 3 and 6 children
((n/2 and n with n =6).
 Root must have at least 2 children.
QUERIES ON B+-TREES
function find(v)
1. C=root
2. while (C is not a leaf node)
1. Let i be least number s.t. V  Ki.
2. if there is no such number i then
3. Set C = last non-null pointer in C
4. else if (v = C.Ki ) Set C = Pi +1
5. else set C = C.Pi
3. if for some i, Ki = V then return C.Pi
4. else return null /* no record with search-key value v exists. */
QUERIES ON
 Range queries Brecords
find all
+
-TREES
with search (CONT.)
key values in a given range
• See book for details of function findRange(lb, ub) which returns set of all such
records
• Real implementations usually provide an iterator interface to fetch matching
records one at a time, using a next() function
QUERIES
 If there are KON B+-values
search-key TREESin the file,(CONT.)
the height of the tree is no more than
logn/2(K).
 A node is generally the same size as a disk block, typically 4 kilobytes
• and n is typically around 100 (40 bytes per index entry).
 With 1 million search key values and n = 100
• at most log50(1,000,000) = 4 nodes are accessed in a lookup traversal from root to
leaf.
 Contrast this with a balanced binary tree with 1 million search key values — around 20
nodes are accessed in a lookup
• above difference is significant since every node access may need a disk I/O, costing
around 20 milliseconds
NON-UNIQUE
 If a search key a is notKEYS
i unique, create instead an index on a composite key (a , A ),
i p
which is unique
• Ap could be a primary key, record ID, or any other attribute that guarantees
uniqueness
 Search for ai = v can be implemented by a range search on composite key, with range (v,
- ∞) to (v, + ∞)
 But more I/O operations are needed to fetch the actual records
• If the index is clustering, all accesses are sequential
• If the index is non-clustering, each record access may need an I/O operation
UPDATES ON
Assume record already B
added
+
-TREES:
to the file. Let INSERTION
 pr be pointer to the record, and let
 v be the search key value of the record
1.Find the leaf node in which the search-key value would appear
1. If there is room in the leaf node, insert (v, pr) pair in the leaf node
2. Otherwise, split the node (along with the new (v, pr) entry) as discussed in the next
slide, and propagate updates to parent nodes.
UPDATES ON B+-TREES: INSERTION
(CONT.)
 Splitting a leaf node:
• take the n (search-key value, pointer) pairs (including the one being inserted) in
sorted order. Place the first n/2 in the original node, and the rest in a new node.
• let the new node be p, and let k be the least key value in p. Insert (k,p) in the parent
of the node being split.
• If the parent is full, split it and propagate the split further up.
 Splitting of nodes proceeds upwards till a node that is not full is found.
• In the worst case the root node may be split increasing the height of the tree by 1.

Result of splitting node containing Brandt, Califieri and Crick on inserting Adams
Next step: insert entry with (Califieri, pointer-to-new-node) into parent
 B+-TREE INSERTION

Affected nodes

B+-Tree before and after insertion of “Adams”

 B+-TREE INSERTION

B+-Tree before and after insertion of “Lamport”

Affected nodes

Affected nodes
INSERTION IN
 Splitting a non-leaf Bwhen
node:
+
-TREES
inserting (k,p) (CONT.)
into an already full internal node N
• Copy N to an in-memory area M with space for n+1 pointers and n keys
• Insert (k,p) into M
• Copy P1,K1, …, K n/2-1,P n/2 from M back into node N
• Copy Pn/2+1,K n/2+1,…,Kn,Pn+1 from M into newly allocated node N'
• Insert (K n/2,N') into parent N
 Example

 Read pseudocode in book!

 EXAMPLES OF B+-TREE DELETION

Before and after deleting “Srinivasan”

Affected nodes

 Deleting “Srinivasan” causes merging of under-full leaves

 EXAMPLES OF B+-TREE DELETION
(CONT.)

Before and after deleting “Singh” and “Wu”

Affected nodes

 Leaf containing Singh and Wu became underfull, and borrowed a value Kim from its left
sibling
 Search-key value in the parent changes as a result
EXAMPLE OF B+-TREE DELETION
(CONT.)

Before and after deletion of “Gold”

 Node with Gold and Katz became underfull, and was merged with its sibling
 Parent node becomes underfull, and is merged with its sibling
• Value separating two nodes (at the parent) is pulled down when merging
 Root node then has only one child, and is deleted
UPDATES ONdeleted
Assume record already B+-TREES: DELETION
from file. Let V be the search key value of the record, and Pr
be the pointer to the record.
Remove (Pr, V) from the leaf node
If the node has too few entries due to the removal, and the entries in the node and a sibling fit
into a single node, then merge siblings:
• Insert all the search-key values in the two nodes into a single node (the one on the
left), and delete the other node.
• Delete the pair (Ki–1, Pi), where Pi is the pointer to the deleted node, from its parent,
recursively using the above procedure.
UPDATES
 Otherwise, if ON
the nodeB
has-TREES:
+
too few entries due DELETION
to the removal, but the entries in the node
and a sibling do not fit into a single node, then redistribute pointers:
• Redistribute the pointers between the node and a sibling such that both have more
than the minimum number of entries.
• Update the corresponding search-key value in the parent of the node.
 The node deletions may cascade upwards till a node which has n/2 or more pointers is
found.
 If the root node has only one pointer after deletion, it is deleted and the sole child
becomes the root.
COMPLEXITY OF
 Cost (in terms of number UPDATES
of I/O operations) of insertion and deletion of a single entry
proportional to height of the tree
• With K entries and maximum fanout of n, worst case complexity of insert/delete of an
entry is O(logn/2(K))
 In practice, number of I/O operations is less:
• Internal nodes tend to be in buffer
• Splits/merges are rare, most insert/delete operations only affect a leaf node
 Average node occupancy depends on insertion order
• 2/3rds with random, ½ with insertion in sorted order
NON-UNIQUE
 Alternatives to schemeSEARCH
described earlier KEYS
• Buckets on separate block (bad idea)
• List of tuple pointers with each key
 Extra code to handle long lists
 Deletion of a tuple can be expensive if there are many duplicates on search key
(why?)
• Worst case complexity may be linear!
 Low space overhead, no extra cost for queries
• Make search key unique by adding a record-identifier
 Extra storage overhead for keys
 Simpler code for insertion/deletion
 Widely used
B+-TREE FILE
B -Tree File
+ ORGANIZATION
Organization:
• Leaf nodes in a B+-tree file organization store records, instead of pointers
• Helps keep data records clustered even when there are insertions/deletions/updates
 Leaf nodes are still required to be half full
• Since records are larger than pointers, the maximum number of records that can be
stored in a leaf node is less than the number of pointers in a nonleaf node.
 Insertion and deletion are handled in the same way as insertion and deletion of entries in a
B+-tree index.
B+-TREE FILE ORGANIZATION (CONT.)
Example of B+-tree File Organization

 Good space utilization important since records use more space than pointers.
 To improve space utilization, involve more sibling nodes in redistribution during splits and
merges
• Involving 2 siblings in redistribution (to avoid split / merge where possible) results in
each node having at least entries

 2n / 3
OTHER
 Record ISSUES IN INDEXING
relocation and secondary indices
• If a record moves, all secondary indices that store record pointers have to be
updated
• Node splits in B+-tree file organizations become very expensive
• Solution: use search key of B+-tree file organization instead of record pointer in
secondary index
 Add record-id if B+-tree file organization search key is non-unique
 Extra traversal of file organization to locate record
• Higher cost for queries, but node splits are cheap
INDEXING
 Variable length STRINGS
strings as keys
• Variable fanout
• Use space utilization as criterion for splitting, not number of pointers
 Prefix compression
• Key values at internal nodes can be prefixes of full key
 Keep enough characters to distinguish entries in the subtrees separated by the
key value
• E.g., “Silas” and “Silberschatz” can be separated by “Silb”
• Keys in leaf node can be compressed by sharing common prefixes
BULK LOADING AND BOTTOM-UP
BUILD
 Inserting entries one-at-a-time into a B -tree requires  1 IO per entry
+

• assuming leaf level does not fit in memory

• can be very inefficient for loading a large number of entries at a time (bulk loading)
 Efficient alternative 1:
• sort entries first (using efficient external-memory sort algorithms discussed later in
Section 12.4)
• insert in sorted order
 insertion will go to existing page (or cause a split)
 much improved IO performance, but most leaf nodes half full
 Efficient alternative 2: Bottom-up B+-tree construction
• As before sort entries
• And then create tree layer-by-layer, starting with leaf level
 details as an exercise
• Implemented as part of bulk-load utility by most database systems
B-TREE INDEX FILE EXAMPLE

B-tree (above) and B+-tree (below) on same data

INDEXING ON FLASH
 Random I/O cost much lower on flash
• 20 to 100 microseconds for read/write
 Writes are not in-place, and (eventually) require a more expensive erase
 Optimum page size therefore much smaller
 Bulk-loading still useful since it minimizes page erases
 Write-optimized tree structures (discussed later) have been adapted to minimize page
writes for flash-optimized search trees
INDEXING
 Random accessIN MAIN MEMORY
in memory
• Much cheaper than on disk/flash
• But still expensive compared to cache read
• Data structures that make best use of cache preferable
• Binary search for a key value within a large B +-tree node results in many cache
misses
 B+- trees with small nodes that fit in cache line are preferable to reduce cache misses
 Key idea: use large node size to optimize disk access, but structure data within a node
using a tree with small node size, instead of using an array.
Hashing
STATIC HASHING
 A bucket is a unit of storage containing one or more entries (a bucket is typically a
disk block).
• we obtain the bucket of an entry from its search-key value using a hash function
 Hash function h is a function from the set of all search-key values K to the set of all
bucket addresses B.
 Hash function is used to locate entries for access, insertion as well as deletion.
 Entries with different search-key values may be mapped to the same bucket; thus
entire bucket has to be searched sequentially to locate an entry.
 In a hash index, buckets store entries with pointers to records
 In a hash file-organization buckets store records
HANDLING OFoccurBUCKET
 Bucket overflow can because of OVERFLOWS
• Insufficient buckets
• Skew in distribution of records. This can occur due to two reasons:
 multiple records have same search-key value
 chosen hash function produces non-uniform distribution of key values
 Although the probability of bucket overflow can be reduced, it cannot be eliminated; it is
handled by using overflow buckets.
HANDLING OF BUCKET OVERFLOWS
(CONT.)
 Overflow chaining – the overflow buckets of a given bucket are chained together in a
linked list.
 Above scheme is called closed addressing (also called closed hashing or open hashing
depending on the book you use)
• An alternative, called
open addressing
(also called
open hashing or
closed hashing
depending on the book you use)
which does not use over-
flow buckets, is not
suitable for database
applications.
EXAMPLE OF HASH FILE
ORGANIZATION
Hash file organization of instructor file, using dept_name as key.
DEFICIENCIES OF
 In static hashing, function STATIC
h maps HASHING
search-key values to a fixed set of B of bucket
addresses. Databases grow or shrink with time.
• If initial number of buckets is too small, and file grows, performance will degrade
due to too much overflows.
• If space is allocated for anticipated growth, a significant amount of space will be
wasted initially (and buckets will be underfull).
• If database shrinks, again space will be wasted.
 One solution: periodic re-organization of the file with a new hash function
• Expensive, disrupts normal operations
 Better solution: allow the number of buckets to be modified dynamically.
DYNAMIC HASHING
 Periodic rehashing
• If number of entries in a hash table becomes (say) 1.5 times size of hash table,
 create new hash table of size (say) 2 times the size of the previous hash table
 Rehash all entries to new table
 Linear Hashing
• Do rehashing in an incremental manner
 Extendable Hashing
• Tailored to disk based hashing, with buckets shared by multiple hash values
• Doubling of # of entries in hash table, without doubling # of buckets
COMPARISON OF ORDERED INDEXING AND HASHING

 Cost of periodic re-organization

 Relative frequency of insertions and deletions
 Is it desirable to optimize average access time at the expense of worst-case access time?
 Expected type of queries:
• Hashing is generally better at retrieving records having a specified value of the key.
• If range queries are common, ordered indices are to be preferred
 In practice:
• PostgreSQL supports hash indices, but discourages use due to poor performance
• Oracle supports static hash organization, but not hash indices
• SQLServer supports only B+-trees
MULTIPLE-KEY ACCESS
 Use multiple indices for certain types of queries.
 Example:
select ID
from instructor
where dept_name = “Finance” and salary = 80000
 Possible strategies for processing query using indices on single attributes:
1. Use index on dept_name to find instructors with department name Finance; test
salary = 80000
2. Use index on salary to find instructors with a salary of $80000; test dept_name =
“Finance”.
3. Use dept_name index to find pointers to all records pertaining to the “Finance”
department. Similarly use index on salary. Take intersection of both sets of pointers
obtained.
INDICES
 CompositeON
searchMULTIPLE KEYS
keys are search keys containing more than one attribute
• E.g., (dept_name, salary)
 Lexicographic ordering: (a1, a2) < (b1, b2) if either
• a1 < b1, or
• a1=b1 and a2 < b2
INDICES ON MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTES
Suppose we have an index on combined search-key
(dept_name, salary).
 With the where clause
where dept_name = “Finance” and salary = 80000
the index on (dept_name, salary) can be used to fetch only records that satisfy both
conditions.
• Using separate indices in less efficient — we may fetch many records (or pointers)
that satisfy only one of the conditions.
 Can also efficiently handle
where dept_name = “Finance” and salary < 80000
 But cannot efficiently handle
where dept_name < “Finance” and balance = 80000
• May fetch many records that satisfy the first but not the second condition
OTHER FEATURES
 Covering indices
• Add extra attributes to index so (some) queries can avoid fetching the actual records
• Store extra attributes only at leaf
 Why?
 Particularly useful for secondary indices
• Why?
CREATION
 Example OF INDICES
create index takes_pk on takes (ID,course_ID, year, semester, section)
drop index takes_pk
 Most database systems allow specification of type of index, and clustering.
 Indices on primary key created automatically by all databases
• Why?
 Some database also create indices on foreign key attributes
• Why might such an index be useful for this query:
 takes ⨝ σname='Shankar' (student)
 Indices can greatly speed up lookups, but impose cost on updates
• Index tuning assistants/wizards supported on several databases to help choose
indices, based on query and update workload
INDEX
 Create DEFINITION
an index IN SQL
create index <index-name> on <relation-name>
(<attribute-list>)
E.g.,: create index b-index on branch(branch_name)
 Use create unique index to indirectly specify and enforce the condition that the search
key is a candidate key is a candidate key.
• Not really required if SQL unique integrity constraint is supported
 To drop an index
drop index <index-name>
 Most database systems allow specification of type of index, and clustering.
WRITE OPTIMIZED
 Performance INDICES
of B -trees can be poor
+ for write-intensive workloads
• One I/O per leaf, assuming all internal nodes are in memory
• With magnetic disks, < 100 inserts per second per disk
• With flash memory, one page overwrite per insert
 Two approaches to reducing cost of writes
• Log-structured merge tree
• Buffer tree
LOG STRUCTURED
 Consider MERGE (LSM) TREE
only inserts/queries for now
 Records inserted first into in-memory
tree (L0 tree)
 When in-memory tree is full, records
moved to disk (L1 tree)
• B+-tree constructed using bottom-
up build by merging existing L1
tree with records from L0 tree
 When L1 tree exceeds some threshold,
merge into L2 tree
• And so on for more levels
• Size threshold for Li+1 tree is k
times size threshold for Li tree
LSM TREE
 Benefits of LSM(CONT.)
approach
• Inserts are done using only sequential I/O operations
• Leaves are full, avoiding space wastage
• Reduced number of I/O operations per record inserted as compared to normal B +-
tree (up to some size)
 Drawback of LSM approach
• Queries have to search multiple trees
• Entire content of each level copied multiple times
 Stepped-merge index
• Variant of LSM tree with multiple trees at each level
• Reduces write cost compared to LSM tree
• But queries are even more expensive
 Bloom filters to avoid lookups in most trees
 Details are covered in Chapter 24
LSM TREES
 Deletion (CONT.)
handled by adding special “delete” entries
• Lookups will find both original entry and the delete entry, and must return only those
entries that do not have matching delete entry
• When trees are merged, if we find a delete entry matching an original entry, both are
dropped.
 Update handled using insert+delete
 LSM trees were introduced for disk-based indices
• But useful to minimize erases with flash-based indices
• The stepped-merge variant of LSM trees is used in many BigData storage systems
 Google BigTable, Apache Cassandra, MongoDB
 And more recently in SQLite4, LevelDB, and MyRocks storage engine of MySQL
BUFFER
 AlternativeTREE
to LSM tree
 Key idea: each internal node of B+-tree has a buffer to store inserts
• Inserts are moved to lower levels when buffer is full
• With a large buffer, many records are moved to lower level each time
• Per record I/O decreases correspondingly
 Benefits
• Less overhead on queries
• Can be used with any tree index structure
• Used in PostgreSQL Generalized Search Tree (GiST) indices
 Drawback: more random I/O than LSM tree
BITMAP INDICES
 Bitmap indices are a special type of index designed for efficient querying on multiple
keys
 Records in a relation are assumed to be numbered sequentially from, say, 0
• Given a number n it must be easy to retrieve record n
 Particularly easy if records are of fixed size
 Applicable on attributes that take on a relatively small number of distinct values
• E.g., gender, country, state, …
• E.g., income-level (income broken up into a small number of levels such as 0-
9999, 10000-19999, 20000-50000, 50000- infinity)
 A bitmap is simply an array of bits
BITMAP INDICES
 In its simplest
attribute
(CONT.)
form a bitmap index on an attribute has a bitmap for each value of the

• Bitmap has as many bits as records

• In a bitmap for value v, the bit for a record is 1 if the record has the value v for the
attribute, and is 0 otherwise
 Example
BITMAP INDICES
 Bitmap indices (CONT.)
are useful for queries on multiple attributes
• not particularly useful for single attribute queries
 Queries are answered using bitmap operations
• Intersection (and)
• Union (or)
 Each operation takes two bitmaps of the same size and applies the operation on
corresponding bits to get the result bitmap
• E.g., 100110 AND 110011 = 100010
100110 OR 110011 = 110111
NOT 100110 = 011001
• Males with income level L1: 10010 AND 10100 = 10000
 Can then retrieve required tuples.
 Counting number of matching tuples is even faster
BITMAP INDICES (CONT.)
 Bitmap indices generally very small compared with relation size
• E.g., if record is 100 bytes, space for a single bitmap is 1/800 of space used by
relation.
 If number of distinct attribute values is 8, bitmap is only 1% of relation size
EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION OF BITMAP
OPERATIONS
 Bitmaps are packed into words; a single word and (a basic CPU instruction) computes
and of 32 or 64 bits at once
• E.g., 1-million-bit maps can be and-ed with just 31,250 instruction
 Counting number of 1s can be done fast by a trick:
• Use each byte to index into a precomputed array of 256 elements each storing the
count of 1s in the binary representation
 Can use pairs of bytes to speed up further at a higher memory cost
• Add up the retrieved counts
 Bitmaps can be used instead of Tuple-ID lists at leaf levels of
B+-trees, for values that have a large number of matching records
• Worthwhile if > 1/64 of the records have that value, assuming a tuple-id is 64 bits
• Above technique merges benefits of bitmap and B+-tree indices
Spatial and Temporal Indices
SPATIAL
 DatabasesDATA
can store data types such as lines, polygons, in addition to raster images
• allows relational databases to store and retrieve spatial information
• Queries can use spatial conditions (e.g. contains or overlaps).
• queries can mix spatial and nonspatial conditions
 Nearest neighbor queries, given a point or an object, find the nearest object that
satisfies given conditions.
 Range queries deal with spatial regions. e.g., ask for objects that lie partially or fully
inside a specified region.
 Queries that compute intersections or unions of regions.
 Spatial join of two spatial relations with the location playing the role of join attribute.
INDEXING OF SPATIAL DATA
3 3
 k-d tree - early structure used for indexing in
multiple dimensions.
 Each level of a k-d tree partitions the space into
two.
• Choose one dimension for partitioning at the
root level of the tree. 2
• Choose another dimensions for partitioning
in nodes at the next level and so on, cycling
through the dimensions.
 In each node, approximately half of the points
stored in the sub-tree fall on one side and half on
the other. 2
 Partitioning stops when a node has less than a
given number of points.

3 1 3

 The k-d-B tree extends the k-d

tree to allow multiple child
nodes for each internal node;
well-suited for secondary
storage.
DIVISION
 Each node ofOF SPACE
a quadtree BY
is associated with QUADTREES
a rectangular region of space; the top node is
associated with the entire target space.
 Each non-leaf nodes divides its region into four equal sized quadrants
• correspondingly each such node has four child nodes corresponding to the four
quadrants and so on
 Leaf nodes have between zero and some fixed maximum number of points (set to 1 in
example).
R-TREES
 R-trees are a N-dimensional extension of B -trees, useful for indexing sets of rectangles
+

and other polygons.

 Supported in many modern database systems, along with variants like R + -trees and R*-
trees.
 Basic idea: generalize the notion of a one-dimensional interval associated with each B+
-tree node to an
N-dimensional interval, that is, an N-dimensional rectangle.
 Will consider only the two-dimensional case (N = 2)
• generalization for N > 2 is straightforward, although R-trees work well only for
relatively small N
 The bounding box of a node is a minimum sized rectangle that contains all the
rectangles/polygons associated with the node
• Bounding boxes of children of a node are allowed to overlap
EXAMPLE R-TREE
 A set of rectangles (solid line) and the bounding boxes (dashed line) of the nodes of an R-
tree for the rectangles.
 The R-tree is shown on the right.
SEARCH
 To find dataIN
itemsR-TREES
intersecting a given query point/region, do the following, starting from
the root node:
• If the node is a leaf node, output the data items whose keys intersect the given query
point/region.
• Else, for each child of the current node whose bounding box intersects the query
point/region, recursively search the child
 Can be very inefficient in worst case since multiple paths may need to be searched, but
works acceptably in practice.
INDEXING TEMPORAL
 Temporal data refers DATA
to data that has an associated time period (interval)
• Example: a temporal version of the course relation

 Time interval has a start and end time

• End time set to infinity (or large date such as 9999-12-31) if a tuple is currently valid
and its validity end time is not currently known
 Query may ask for all tuples that are valid at a point in time or during a time interval
• Index on valid time period speeds up this task
INDEXING TEMPORAL
 To create a temporal index on attribute a: DATA (CONT.)
• Use spatial index, such as R-tree, with attribute a as one dimension, and time as
another dimension
 Valid time forms an interval in the time dimension
• Tuples that are currently valid cause problems, since value is infinite or very large
 Solution: store all current tuples (with end time as infinity) in a separate index,
indexed on (a, start-time)
• To find tuples valid at a point in time t in the current tuple index, search for
tuples in the range (a, 0) to (a,t)
 Temporal index on primary key can help enforce temporal primary key constraint
END OF CHAPTER 14
EXAMPLE OF HASH INDEX

hash index on instructor, on attribute ID