Scientific Data Management in the Coming Decade
Jim Gray, Microsoft
David T. Liu, Berkeley
Maria Nieto-Santisteban & Alexander S. Szalay, Johns Hopkins University
David DeWitt, Wisconsin
Gerd Heber, Cornell
January 2005

Technical Report
MSR-TR-2005-10

Microsoft Research
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052

Scientific Data Management in the Coming Decade
Jim Gray, Microsoft
David T. Liu, Berkeley
Maria Nieto-Santisteban & Alexander S. Szalay, Johns Hopkins University
David DeWitt, Wisconsin
Gerd Heber, Cornell
January 2005

Data-intensive science – a new paradigm
Scientific instruments and computer simulations are
creating vast data stores that require new scientific
methods to analyze and organize the data. Data volumes
are approximately doubling each year. Since these new
instruments have extraordinary precision, the data quality
is also rapidly improving. Analyzing this data to find the
subtle effects missed by previous studies requires
algorithms that can simultaneously deal with huge
datasets and that can find very subtle effects – finding
both needles in the haystack and finding very small
haystacks that were undetected in previous measurements.
The raw instrument and simulation data is processed by
pipelines that produce standard data products. In the
NASA terminology1, the raw Level 0 data is calibrated
and rectified to Level 1 datasets that are combined with
other data to make derived Level 2 datasets.
Most
analysis happens on these Level 2 datasets with drill down
to Level 1 data when anomalies are investigated.
We believe that most new science happens when the data
is examined in new ways. So our focus here is on data
exploration, interactive data analysis, and integration of
Level 2 datasets.
Data analysis tools have not kept pace with our ability to
capture and store data. Many scientists envy the pen-andpaper days when all their data used to fit in a notebook
and analysis was done with a slide-rule. Things were
simpler then; one could focus on the science rather than
needing to be an information-technology-professional
with expertise in arcane computer data analysis tools.
The largest data analysis gap is in this man-machine
interface. How can we put the scientist back in control of
his data? How can we build analysis tools that are
intuitive and that augment the scientist’s intellect rather
than adding to the intellectual burden with a forest of
arcane user tools? The real challenge is building this
smart notebook that unlocks the data and makes it easy to
capture, organize, analyze, visualize, and publish.

1

Committee on Data Management, Archiving, and Computing
(CODMAC) Data Level Definitions
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/research/earth_ science_formats.html

This article is about the data and data analysis layer
within such a smart notebook. We argue that the smart
notebook will access data presented by science centers
that will provide the community with analysis tools and
computational resources to explore huge data archives.

New data-analysis methods
The demand for tools and computational resources to
perform scientific data-analysis is rising even faster than
data volumes. This is a consequence of three phenomena:
(1) More sophisticated algorithms consume more
instructions to analyze each byte. (2) Many analysis
algorithms are super-linear, often needing N2 or N3 time to
process N data points. And (3) IO bandwidth has not kept
pace with storage capacity. In the last decade, while
capacity has grown more than 100-fold, storage
bandwidth has improved only about 10-fold.
These three trends: algorithmic intensity, nonlinearity,
and bandwidth-limits mean that the analysis is taking
longer and longer. To ameliorate these problems,
scientists will need better analysis algorithms that can
handle extremely large datasets with approximate
algorithms (ones with near-linear execution time) and
they will need parallel algorithms that can apply many
processors and many disks to the problem to meet cpudensity and bandwidth-density demands.

Science centers
These peta-scale datasets required a new work style.
Today the typical scientist copies files to a local server
and operates on the datasets using his own resources.
Increasingly, the datasets are so large, and the application
programs are so complex, that it is much more
economical to move the end-user’s programs to the data
and only communicate questions and answers rather than
moving the source data and its applications to the user‘s
local system.
Science data centers that provide access to both the data
and the applications that analyze the data are emerging as
service stations for one or another scientific domain.
Each of these science centers curates one or more massive
datasets, curates the applications that provide access to
that dataset, and supports a staff that understands the data
and indeed is constantly adding to and improving the

dataset. One can see this with the SDSS at Fermilab,
BaBar at SLAC, BIRN at SDSC, with Entrez-PubMedGenBank at NCBI, and with many other datasets across
other disciplines. These centers federate with others. For
example BaBar has about 25 peer sites and CERN LHC
expects to have many Tier1 peer sites. NCBI has several
peers, and SDSS is part of the International Virtual
Observatory.

from the redundant copies with no interruption to
database access, much as RAID5 disk arrays do today.

The new work style in these scientific domains is to send
questions to applications running at a data center and get
back answers, rather than to bulk-copy raw data from the
archive to your local server for further analysis. Indeed,
there is an emerging trend to store a personal workspace
(a MyDB) at the data center and deposit answers there.
This minimizes data movement and allows collaboration
among a group of scientists doing joint analysis. These
personal workspaces are also a vehicle for data analysis
groups to collaborate. Longer term, personal workspaces
at the data center could become a vehicle for data
publication – posting both the scientific results of an
experiment or investigation along with the programs used
to generate them in public read-only databases.

Metadata enables data access

Many scientists will prefer doing much of their analysis at
data centers because it will save them having to manage
local data and computer farms. Some scientists may bring
the small data extracts “home” for local processing,
analysis and visualization – but it will be possible to do
all the analysis at the data center using the personal
workspace.
When a scientist wants to correlate data from two
different data centers, then there is no option but to move
part of the data from one place to another. If this is
common, the two data centers will likely federate with
one another to provide mutual data backup since the data
traffic will justify making the copy.
Peta-scale data sets will require 1000-10,000 disks and
thousands of compute nodes. At any one time some of the
disks and some of the nodes will be broken. Such systems
have to have a mechanism in place to protect against data
loss, and provide availability even with a less than full
configuration — a self-healing system is required.
Replicating the data in science centers at different
geographic locations is implied in the discussion above.
Geographic replication provides both data availability and
protects against data loss. Within a data center one can
combine redundancy with a clever partitioning strategy to
protect against failure at the disk controller or server
level. While storing the data twice for redundancy, one
can use different organizations (e.g. partition by space in
one, and by time in the other) to optimize system
performance. Failed data can be automatically recovered

All these scenarios postulate easy data access, interchange
and integration. Data must be self-describing in order to
allow this. This self-description, or metadata, is central to
all these scenarios; it enables generic tools to understand
the data, and it enables people to understand the data.

Metadata is the descriptive information about data that
explains the measured attributes, their names, units,
precision, accuracy, data layout and ideally a great deal
more. Most importantly, metadata includes the data
lineage that describes how the data was measured,
acquired or computed.
If the data is to be analyzed by generic tools, the tools
need to “understand” the data. You cannot just present a
bundle-of-bytes to a tool and expect the tool to intuit
where the data values are and what they mean. The tool
will want to know the metadata.
To take a simple example, given a file, you cannot say
much about it – it could be anything. If I tell you it is a
JPEG, you know it is a bitmap in http://www.jpeg.org/
format. JPEG files start with a header that describes the
file layout, and often tells the camera, timestamp, and
program that generated the picture. Many programs know
how to read JPEG files and also produce new JPEG files
that include metadata describing how the new image was
produced. MP3 music files and PDF document files have
similar roles – each is in a standard format, each carries
some metadata, and each has an application suite to
process and generate that file class.
If scientists are to read data collected by others, then the
data must be carefully documented and must be published
in forms that allow easy access and automated
manipulation. In an ideal world there would be powerful
tools that make it easy to capture, organize, analyze,
visualize, and publish data. The tools would do data
mining and machine learning on the data, and would
make it easy to script workflows that analyze the data.
Good metadata for the inputs is essential to make these
tools automatic. Preserving and augmenting this metadata
as part of the processing (data lineage) will be a key
benefit of the next-generation tools.
All the derived data that the scientist produces must also
be carefully documented and published in forms that
allow easy access. Ideally much of this metadata would
be automatically generated and managed as part of the
workflow, reducing the scientist’s intellectual burden.

Semantic convergence: numbers to objects
Much science data is in the form of numeric arrays
generated by instruments and simulations. Simple and
convenient data models have evolved to represent arrays
and relationships among them. These data models can
also represent data lineage and other metadata by
including narrative text, data definitions, and data tables
within the file. HDF2, NetCDF3 and FITS4 are good
examples of such standards. They each include a library
that encapsulates the files and provides a platformindependent way to read sub-arrays and to create or
update files. Each standard allows easy data interchange
among scientists. Generic tools that analyze and visualize
these higher-level file formats are built atop each of these
standards.
While the commercial world has standardized on the
relational data model and SQL, no single standard or tool
has critical mass in the scientific community. There are
many parallel and competing efforts to build these tool
suites – at least one per discipline. Data interchange
outside each group is problematic. In the next decade, as
data interchange among scientific disciplines becomes
increasingly important, a common HDF-like format and
package for all the sciences will likely emerge.
Definitions of common terminology (units and
measurements) are emerging within each discipline. We
are most familiar with the Universal Content Descriptors
(UCD5) of the Astronomy community that define about a
thousand core astrophysics units, measurements, and
concepts. Almost every discipline has an analogous
ontology (a.k.a., controlled vocabulary) effort. These
efforts will likely start to converge over the next decade –
probably as part of the converged format standard. This
will greatly facilitate tool-building and tools since an
agreement on these concepts can help guide analysis tool
designs.
In addition to standardization, computer-usable ontologies
will help build the Semantic Web: applications will be
semantically compatible beyond the mere syntactic
compatibility that current-generation of Web services
offer with type matching interfaces. However, it will take
some time before high-performance general-purpose
ontology engines will be available and integrated with
data analysis tools.
Database users on the other hand are well positioned to
prototype such applications: a database schema, though
not a complete ontology in itself, can be a rich ontology
2

http://hdf.ncsa.uiuc.edu/HDF5/
http://my.unidata.ucar.edu/content/software/netcdf/
4
http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/
5
http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/doc/UCD.htx
3

extract. SQL can be used to implement a rudimentary
semantic algebra. The XML integration in modern
Database Management Systems (DBMS) opens the door
for existing standards like RDF and OWL.
Visualization or better visual exploration is a prime
example of an application where success is determined by
the ability to map a question formulated in the conceptual
framework of the domain ontology onto the querying
capabilities of a (meta-) data analysis backend. For the
time being, a hybrid of SQL and XQuery is the only
language suitable to serve as the target assembly language
in this translation process.

Metadata enables data independence
The separation of data and programs is artificial – one
cannot see the data without using a program and most
programs are data driven. So, it is paradoxical that the
data management community has worked for 40 years to
achieve something called data independence – a clear
separation of programs from data. Database systems
provide two forms of data independence termed physical
data independence and logical data independence.
Physical data independence comes in many different
forms. However, in all cases the goal is to be able to
change the underlying physical data organization without
breaking any application programs that depend on the old
data format. One example of physical data independence
is the ability of a database system to partition the rows of
a table across multiple disks and/or multiple nodes of a
cluster without requiring that any application programs be
modified. The mapping of the fields of each row of a
relational table to different disks is another important
example of physical data independence. While a database
system might choose to map each row to a contiguous
storage container (e.g. a record) on a single disk page, it
might also choose to store large, possibly infrequently
referenced attributes of a table corresponding to large text
objects, JPEG images, or multidimensional arrays in
separate storage containers on different disk pages and/or
different storage volumes in order to maximize the overall
performance of the system. Again, such physical storage
optimizations are implemented to be completely
transparent to application programs except, perhaps, for a
change in their performance. In the scientific domain the
analogy would be that you could take a working
application program that uses a C struct to describe its
data records on disk and change the physical layout of the
records without having to rewrite or even recompile the
application program (or any of the other application
programs that access the same data). By allowing such
techniques, physical data independence allows
performance improvements by reorganizing data for

parallelism–at little or no extra effort on the part of
scientists.
Modern database systems also provide logical data
independence that insulates programs from changes to the
logical database design – allowing designers to add or
delete relationships and to add information to the
database. While physical data independence is used to
hide changes in the physical data organizations, logical
data independence hides changes in the logical
organization of the data. Logical data independence is
typically supported using views. A view defines a virtual
table that is specified using a SQL query over one or more
base tables and/or other views.
Views serve many
purposes including increased security (by hiding attributes
from applications and/or users without a legitimate need
for access) and enhanced performance (by materializing
views defined by complex SQL queries over very large
input tables). But views are primarily used to allow old
programs to operate correctly even as the underlying
database is reorganized and redesigned. For example,
consider a program whose correct operation depends on
some table T that a database administrator wants to
reorganize by dividing vertically into two pieces stored in
tables T’ and T”. To preserve applications that depend
on T, the database administrator can then define a view
over T’ and T” corresponding to the original definition of
table T, allowing old programs to continue to operate
correctly.
In addition, data evolves. Systems evolve from EBCDIC
to ASCII to Unicode, from proprietary-float to IEEEfloat, from marks to euros, and from 8-character ASCII
names to 1,000 character Unicode names. It is important
to be able to make these changes without breaking the
millions of lines of existing programs that want to see the
data in the old way. Views are used to solve these
problems by dynamically translating data to the
appropriate formats (converting among character and
number representations, converting among 6-digit and 9digit postal codes, converting between long-and-short
names, and hiding new information from old programs.)
The pain of the Y2K (converting from 2-character to 4character years) taught most organizations the importance
of data independence.
Database systems use a schema to implement both logical
and physical data independence. The schema for a
database holds all metadata including table and view
definitions as well as information on what indices exist
and how tables are mapped to storage volumes (and nodes
in a parallel database environment). Separating the data
and the metadata from the programs that manipulate the
data is crucial to data independence. Otherwise, it is
essentially impossible for other programs to find the
metadata which, in turn, makes it essentially impossible

for multiple programs to share a common database.
Object-oriented programming concepts have refined the
separation of programs and data.
Data classes
encapsulated with methods provide data independence
and make it much easier to evolve the data without
perturbing programs. So, these ideas are still evolving.
But the key point of this section is that an explicit and
standard data access layer with precise metadata and
explicit data access is essential for data independence.

Set-oriented data access gives parallelism
As mentioned earlier, scientists often start with numeric
data arrays from their instruments or simulations. Often,
these arrays are accompanied by tabular data describing
the experimental setup, simulation parameters, or
environmental conditions. The data are also accompanied
by documents that explain the data.
Many operations take these arrays and produce new
arrays, but eventually, the arrays undergo feature
extraction to produce objects that are the basis for further
analysis. For example, raw astronomy data is converted
to object catalogs of stars and galaxies. Stream-gauge
measurements are converted to stream-flow and waterquality time-series data, serum-mass-spectrograms are
converted to records describing peptide and protein
concentrations, and raw high-energy physics data are
converted to events.
Most scientific studies involve exploring and data mining
these object-oriented tabular datasets. The scientific fileformats of HDF, NetCDF, and FITS can represent tabular
data but they provide minimal tools for searching and
analyzing tabular data. Their main focus is getting the
tables and sub-arrays into your Fortran/C/Java/Python
address space where you can manipulate the data using
the programming language.
This Fortran/C/Java/Python file-at-a-time procedural data
analysis is nearing the breaking point.
The data
avalanche is creating billions of files and trillions of
events. The file-oriented approach postulates that files
are organized into directories. The directories relate all
data from some instrument or some month or some region
or some laboratory. As things evolve, the directories
become hierarchical.
In this model, data analysis
proceeds by searching all the relevant files – opening each
file, extracting the relevant data and then moving onto the
next file. When all the relevant data has been gathered in
memory (or in intermediate files) the program can begin
its analysis. Performing this filter-then-analyze, data
analysis on large datasets with conventional procedural
tools runs slower and slower as data volumes increase.
Usually, they use only one-cpu-at-a-time; one-disk-at-a-

time and they do a brute-force search of the data.
Scientists need a way (1) to use intelligent indices and
data organizations to subset the search, (2) to use parallel
processing and data access to search huge datasets within
seconds, and (3) to have powerful analysis tools that they
can apply to the subset of data being analyzed.
One approach to this is to use the MPI (Message Passing
Interface) parallel programming environment to write
procedural programs that stream files across a processor
array – each node of the array exploring one part of the
hierarchy.
This is adequate for highly-regular array
processing tasks, but it seems too daunting for ad-hoc
analysis of tabular data. MPI and the various array file
formats lack indexing methods other than partitioned
sequential scan. MPI itself lacks any notion of metadata
beyond file names.
As file systems grow to petabyte-scale archives with
billions of files, the science community must create a
synthesis of database systems and file systems. At a
minimum, the file hierarchy will be replaced with a
database that catalogs the attributes and lineage of each
file. Set-oriented file processing will make file names
increasingly irrelevant – analysis will be applied to “all
data with these attributes” rather than working on a list of
file/directory names or name patterns. Indeed, the files
themselves may become irrelevant (they are just
containers for data.) One can see a harbinger of this idea
in the Map-Reduce approach pioneered by Google6.
From our perspective, the key aspect of Google MapReduce is that it applies thousands of processors and disks
to explore large datasets in parallel. That system has a
very simple data model appropriate for the Google
processing, but we imagine it could evolve over the next
decade to be quite general.
The database community has provided automatic query
processing along with CPU and IO parallelism for over
two decades. Indeed, this automatic parallelism allows
large corporations to mine 100-Terabyte datasets today
using 1000 processor clusters. We believe that many of
those techniques apply to scientific datasets7.

Other useful database features
Database systems are also approaching the peta-scale data
management problem driven largely by the need to
manage huge information stores for the commercial and
governmental sectors. They hide the file concept and deal
with data collections. They can federate many different
6

“MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters,”
J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, ACM OSDI, Dec. 2004.
7
“Parallel Database Systems: the Future of High Performance
Database Systems”, D. DeWitt, J. Gray, CACM, Vol. 35, No.
6, June 1992.

sources letting the program view them all as a single data
collection. They also let the program pivot on any data
attributes.
Database systems provide very powerful data definition
tools to specify the abstract data formats and also specify
how the data is organized. They routinely allow the data
to be replicated so that it can be organized in several ways
(by time, by space, by other attributes). These techniques
have evolved from mere indices to materialized views that
can combine data from many sources.
Database systems provide powerful associative search
(search by value rather than by location) and provide
automatic parallel access and execution essential to petascale data analysis. They provide non-procedural and
parallel data search to quickly find data subsets, and a
many tools to automate data design and management.
In addition, data analysis using data cubes has made huge
advances, and now efforts are focused on integrating
machine learning algorithms that infer trends, do data
clustering, and detect anomalies.
All these tools are
aimed at making it easy to analyze commercial data, but
they are equally applicable to scientific data analysis.

Ending the impedance mismatch
Conventional tabular database systems are adequate for
analyzing objects (galaxies, spectra, proteins, events,
etc.). But even there, the support for time-sequence,
spatial, text and other data types is often awkward.
Database systems have not traditionally supported
science’s core data type: the N-dimensional array. Arrays
have had to masquerade as blobs (binary large objects) in
most systems. This collection of problems is generally
called the impedance mismatch – meaning the mismatch
between the programming model and the database
capabilities. The impedance mismatch has made it
difficult to map many science applications into
conventional tabular database systems.
But, database systems are changing. They are being
integrated with programming languages so that they can
support object-oriented databases. This new generation of
object relational database systems treats any data type (be
it a native float, an array, a string, or a compound object
like an XML or HTML document) as an encapsulated
type that can be stored as a value in a field of a record.
Actually, these systems allow the values to be either
stored directly in the record (embedded) or to be pointed
to by the record (linked). This linking-embedding object
model nicely accommodates the integration of database
systems and file systems – files are treated as linkedobjects. Queries can read and write these extended types
using the same techniques they use on native types.

Indeed we expect HDF and other file formats to be added
as types to most database systems.
Once you can put your types and your programs inside the
database you get the parallelism, non-procedural query,
and data independence advantages of traditional database
systems. We believe this database, file system, and
programming language integration will be the key to
managing and accessing peta-scale data management
systems in the future.

What’s wrong with files?
Everything builds from files as a base. HDF uses files.
Database systems use files. But, file systems have no
metadata beyond a hierarchical directory structure and file
names. They encourage a do-it-yourself- data-model that
will not benefit from the growing suite of data analysis
tools. They encourage do-it-yourself-access-methods that
will not do parallel, associative, temporal, or spatial
search.
They also lack a high-level query language.
Lastly, most file systems can manage millions of files, but
by the time a file system can deal with billions of files, it
has become a database system.
As you can see, we take an ecumenical view of what a
database is. We see NetCDF, HDF, FITS, and Google
Map-Reduce as nascent database systems (others might
think of them as file systems). They have a schema
language (metadata) to define the metadata. They have a
few indexing strategies, and a simple data manipulation
language. They have the start of non-procedural and
parallel programming. And, they have a collection of
tools to create, access, search, and visualize the data. So,
in our view they are simple database systems.

Why scientists don’t use databases today
Traditional database systems have lagged in supporting
core scientific data types but they have a few things
scientists desperately need for their data analysis: nonprocedural query analysis, automatic parallelism, and
sophisticated tools for associative, temporal, and spatial
search.
If one takes the controversial view that HDF, NetCDF,
FITS, and Root are nascent database systems that provide
metadata and portability but lack non-procedural query
analysis, automatic parallelism, and sophisticated
indexing, then one can see a fairly clear path that
integrates these communities.
Some scientists use databases for some of their work, but
as a general rule, most scientists do not. Why? Why are
tabular databases so successful in commercial
applications and such a flop in most scientific
applications? Scientific colleagues give one or more of

the following answers when asked why they do not use
databases to manage their data:
• We don’t see any benefit in them. The cost of
learning the tools (data definition and data loading,
and query) doesn’t seem worth it.
• They do not offer good visualization/plotting tools.
• I can handle my data volumes with my programming
language.
• They do not support our data types (arrays, spatial,
text, etc.).
• They do not support our access patterns (spatial,
temporal, etc.).
• We tried them but they were too slow.
• We tried them but once we loaded our data we could
no longer manipulate the data using our standard
application programs.
• They require an expensive guru (database
administrator) to use.
All these answers are based on experience and
considerable investment. Often the experience was with
older systems (a 1990 vintage database system) or with a
young system (an early object-oriented database or an
early version of Postgres or MySQL.) Nonetheless, there
is considerable evidence that databases have to improve a
lot before they are worth a second look.

Why things are different now
The thing that forces a second look now is that the file-ftp
modus operandi just will not work for peta-scale datasets.
Some new way of managing and accessing information is
needed. We argued that metadata is the key to this and
that a non-procedural data manipulation language
combined with data indexing is essential to being able to
search and analyze the data.
There is a convergence of file systems, database systems,
and programming languages.
Extensible database
systems
use
object-oriented
techniques
from
programming languages to allow you to define complex
objects as native database types. Files (or extended files
like HDF) then become part of the database and benefit
from the parallel search and metadata management. It
seems very likely that these nascent database systems will
be integrated with the main-line database systems in the
next decade or that some new species of metadata driven
analysis and workflow system will supplant both
traditional databases and the science-specific file formats
and their tool suites.

Some hints of success
There are early signs that this is a good approach. One of
us has shown that the doing analysis atop a database
system is vastly simpler and runs much faster than the

corresponding file-oriented approach8.
due to better indexing and parallelism.

The speedup is

We have also had considerable success in adding user
defined functions and stored procedures to astronomy
databases. The MyDB and CasJobs work for the Sloan
Digital Sky Survey give a good example of movingprograms-to-the-database9.
The BaBar experiments at SLAC manage a petabyte store
of event data. The system uses a combination of Oracle
to manage some of the file archive and also a physicsspecific data analysis system called Root for data
analysis10.
Adaptive Finite Element simulations spend considerable
time and programming effort on input, output, and
checkpointing. We (Heber) use a database to represent
large Finite Element models. The initial model is
represented in the database and each checkpoint and
analysis step is written to the database. Using a database
allows queries to define more sophisticated mesh
partitions and allows concurrent indexed access to the
simulation data for visualization and computational
steering. Commercial Finite Element packages each use
a proprietary form of a “database”. They are, however,
limited in scope, functionality, and scalability, and are
typically buried inside the particular application stack.
Each worker in the MPI job gets its partition from the
database (as a query) and dumps its progress to the
database. These dumps are two to four orders of
magnitude larger than the input mesh and represent a
performance challenge in both traditional and database
environments. The database approach has the added
benefit that visualization tools can watch and steer the
computation by reading and writing the database. Finally,
while we have focused on the ability of databases to
simplify and speedup the production of raw simulation
data, we cannot understate its core competency: providing
declarative data analysis interfaces. It is with these tools
that scientists spend most of their time. We hope to apply
similar concepts to some turbulence studies being done at
Johns Hopkins.

8

“When Database Systems Meet the Grid,” M. Nieto
Santisteban et. al., CIDR, 2005,
http://www-db.cs.wisc.edu/cidr/papers/P13.pdf
9
“Batch is back: CasJobs serving multi-TB data on the Web,”
W. O’Mullane, et. al, in preparation.
10
“Lessons Learned from Managing a Petabyte,”
J. Becla and D. L. Wang, CIDR, 2005,
http://www-db.cs.wisc.edu/cidr/papers/P06.pdf

Summary
Science centers that curate and serve science data are
emerging around next-generation science instruments.
The world-wide telescope, GenBank, and the BaBar
collaborations are prototypes of this trend. One group of
scientists is collecting the data and managing these
archives. A larger group of scientists are exploring these
archives the way previous generations explored their
private data. Often the results of the analysis are fed back
to the archive to add to the corpus.
Because data collection is now separated from data
analysis, extensive metadata describing the data in
standard terms is needed so people and programs can
understand the data. Good metadata becomes central for
data sharing among different disciplines and for data
analysis and visualization tools.
There is a convergence of the nascent-databases (HDF,
NetCDF, FITS,..) which focus primarily on the metadata
issues and data interchange, and the traditional data
management systems (SQL and others) that have focused
on managing and analyzing very large datasets. The
traditional systems have the virtues of automatic
parallelism, indexing, and non-procedural access, but they
need to embrace the data types of the science community
and need to co-exist with data in file systems.
We
believe the emphasis on extending database systems by
unifying databases with programming languages so that
one can either embed or link new object types into the
data management system will enable this synthesis.
Three technical advances will be crucial to scientific
analysis: (1) extensive metadata and metadata standards
that will make it easy to discover what data exists, make it
easy for people and programs to understand the data, and
make it easy to track data lineage; (2) great analysis tools
that allow scientists to easily ask questions, and to easily
understand and visualize the answers; and (3) setoriented data parallelism access supported by new
indexing schemes and new algorithms that allow us to
interactively explore peta-scale datasets.
The goal is a smart notebook that empowers scientists to
explore the world’s data.
Science data centers with
computational resources to explore huge data archives
will be central to enabling such notebooks. Because data
is so large, and IO bandwidth is not keeping pace, moving
code to data will be essential to performance.
Consequently, science centers will remain the core
vehicle and federations will likely be secondary. Science
centers will provide both the archives and the institutional
infrastructure to develop these peta-scale archives and the
algorithms and tools to analyze them.

