Take the 2-minute tour ×
Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for cartographers, geographers and GIS professionals. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I should start by saying that I do not have much experience with GIS so this question may be foolish. What I do have is a database for performing a lookup from a set of coordinates to find the bounding box or LSD in which they reside. At the moment the database contains several thousand tables and we run some client side code to decide on which table to query, load that entire table back to the client and filter it client side. That seems dramatically inefficient to me as we are passing back quite a lot of data. Each table defines a large area at which to look and each record defines a smaller area. The areas are defined by 4 corner points. I suppose the original design was based on a quadtree but instead of there being four children and many levels it was decided to have only two levels and many children at each level. I am looking to perform some optimization of this structure.

The database is SQL server 2005 so there is no help available from native geospatial datatypes. What I would like to know is

  • Is this sort of thousand+ table database common for GIS work?
  • Would it not be more efficient to keep the data in a single table and take advantage of some index magic? (Is it possible to index efficiently on the decimals which define each point of the bounding box such that you can find intermediate values?)
  • How could this structure be improved to allow for rapid queries?
share|improve this question
just thousands is small to GIS - an address file working with now is 23 million (oracle spatial); index your table speeds it up. consider SQL Server 2008 or even the free postgres(with postgis extension) spatial indexes are even faster > for very fast spatial queries. –  Mapperz Apr 8 '11 at 15:58
23 million would be stored as rows in a table rather than tables, though right? I take it there is no way to apply quadtree algorithms to SQL 2005. –  stimms Apr 8 '11 at 16:17
23m rows - 1800 columns that relate to other tables with more attribution over 30,000 columns in total - some columns link outside of this instance of oracle and populated in real-time –  Mapperz Apr 8 '11 at 16:27

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I agree with Mapperz, postgres/postgis would be a good way to go if you're looking to change your database system at the same time.

But if you're stuck with SQL Server 2005 (which I assume doesn't have spatial extensions), you could create a hash function of the input coordinates such that geographically close locations are also close in the table, but I can't think of one off hand.

An alternative may be to create a series of tables, one for each level of a quadtree. You may only need 5 or 6 such tables depending on the coverage of your dataset. You do a query on the top level, which gives you a value that is used as part of the key of the next level, and so on. That way you're only testing against at most four bounding boxes for each level, so with 6 levels, that's anywhere betweeen 6 and 24 bounding box tests, and 6 table queries. Now I've not tried this, so it may be not as efficient as it seems in my head, but it may be worth a try.

share|improve this answer
Geospatial extensions were added to SQL Server in the 2008 edition. –  stimms Apr 8 '11 at 16:33

Have you looked at this Spatial Extension for Sql Server 2005?


share|improve this answer
I did look at these but they don't look to be maintained which makes me a bit nervous –  stimms Apr 13 '11 at 3:42

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.