evaluating the open source data containers for handling big geospatial raster data
Clicks: 226
ID: 185233
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
226 views
37 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #42 of 94 articles by views in población y desarrollo
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Big geospatial raster data pose a grand challenge to data management technologies for effective big data query and processing. To address these challenges, various big data container solutions have been developed or enhanced to facilitate data storage, retrieval, and analysis. Data containers were also developed or enhanced to handle geospatial data. For example, Rasdaman was developed to handle raster data and GeoSpark/SpatialHadoop were enhanced from Spark/Hadoop to handle vector data. However, there are few studies to systematically compare and evaluate the features and performances of these popular data containers. This paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of six popular data containers (i.e., Rasdaman, SciDB, Spark, ClimateSpark, Hive, and MongoDB) for handling multi-dimensional, array-based geospatial raster datasets. Their architectures, technologies, capabilities, and performance are compared and evaluated from two perspectives: (a) system design and architecture (distributed architecture, logical data model, physical data model, and data operations); and (b) practical use experience and performance (data preprocessing, data uploading, query speed, and resource consumption). Four major conclusions are offered: (1) no data containers, except ClimateSpark, have good support for the HDF data format used in this paper, requiring time- and resource-consuming data preprocessing to load data; (2) SciDB, Rasdaman, and MongoDB handle small/mediate volumes of data query well, whereas Spark and ClimateSpark can handle large volumes of data with stable resource consumption; (3) SciDB and Rasdaman provide mature array-based data operation and analytical functions, while the others lack these functions for users; and (4) SciDB, Spark, and Hive have better support of user defined functions (UDFs) to extend the system capability.
| Reference Key |
hu2018isprsevaluating
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Fei Hu;Mengchao Xu;Jingchao Yang;Yanshou Liang;Kejin Cui;Michael M. Little;Christopher S. Lynnes;Daniel Q. Duffy;Chaowei Yang |
| Journal | población y desarrollo |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
10.3390/ijgi7040144
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.