Data Management in Sensor Networks

  • Jinbao Li
  • Zhipeng Cai
  • Jianzhong Li
Part of the Signals and Communication Technology book series (SCT)

The purpose of data management in sensor networks is to separate the logical view (name, access, operation) from the physical view of the data. Users and applications need not be concerned about the details of sensor networks, but the logical structures of queries. From the data management point of view, the data management system of a sensor network can be seen as a distributed database system, but it is different from traditional ones. The data management system of a sensor network organizes and manages perceptible information from the inspected area and answers queries from users or applications. This chapter discusses the methods and techniques of data management in sensor networks, including the difference between data management systems in sensor networks and in traditional distributed database systems, the architecture of a data management system in a sensor network, the data model and the query language, the storing and indexing techniques of sensor data, the operating algorithms, the query processing techniques and two examples of data management systems in sensor networks: TinyDB and Cougar.


Sensor Network Sensor Node Cluster Head Query Processing Data Management System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ian F. Akyildiz, Weilian Su, Yogesh Sankarasubramaniam and Erdal Cayirci, A Survey on Sensor Networks, IEEE Communications Magazine, 40(8):102-114, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Philippe Bonnet and Johannes Gehrke, Querying the Physical World, IEEE Per-sonal Communication, October 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Philippe Bonnet, Johannes E. Gehrke and Praveen Seshadri, Towards Sensor Database Systems, In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Mobile Data Management, Hong Kong, January 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Cougar Sensor Database Project,, Cornell University.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Deepak Ganesan, Deborah Estrin and John Heidemann, Dimensions: why do we need a new data handling architecture for sensor networks, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 33(1), January 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    JohannesGehrke,COUGAR designand implementation,
  8. 8.
    Bhaskar Krishnamachari, Impact of Data Aggregation in Wireless Sensor Net-works, In International Workshop of Distributed Event Based Systems (DEBS), Vienna, Austria, July 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mei Li and Yuexin Liu, Sensor Data Management in Pervasive Computing, Penn-sylvania State University Project Report.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Samuel Madden, Joe Hellerstein and Wei Hong, TinyDB: In-Network Query Processing in TinyOS, Intel Research, RB-TR-02-014, Oct. 1, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Samuel R. Madden, Michael J. Franklin, The stream: An architechture for queries over streaming sensor data, Proceedings of the ICDE Conference. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Press, pp.555 666, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Samuel R. Madden, Robert Szewczyk, Michael J. Franklin and David Culler, Supporting Aggregate Queries Over Ad-Hoc Wireless Sensor Networks, Work-shop on Mobile Computing and Systems Applications, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Samuel R. Madden and Michael J. Franklin, Fjording the Stream: An Architec-ture for Queries over Streaming Sensor Data, ICDE Conference, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Samuel R. Madden, Michael J. Franklin, Joseph M. Hellerstein and Wei Hong, The design of an acquisitional query processor for sensor networks, Proceedings of the SIGMOD Conference. New York: ACM Press, pp.491-502, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samuel Madden, The Design and Evaluation of a Query Processing Architecture for Sensor Networks, Ph.D. Thesis. UC Berkeley. Fall, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. S. Raghavendra, K. M.Sivalingam, T. Zhati(Eds.), Wireless Sensor Networks, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.185-252, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sylvia Ratnasamy and Brad Karp, GHT: A Geographic Hash Table for Data-Centric Storage, The First ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA 2002), Atlanta, GA, September, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sylvia Ratnasamy and Deborah Estrin, Data-Centric Storage in Sensornets, Submitted to SIGCOMM 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Praveen Rentala, Ravi Musunuri, Shashidhar Gandham, Udit Saxena, Survey on sensor networks, Technical Report, UTDCS-33-02, University of Texas at Dallas, 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    TinyOS,, UC Berkeley.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Yong Yao and Johannes Gehrke, The cougar approach to in-network query pro-cessing in sensor networks, SIGMOD Record, 31(3):9 18, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yong Yao and Johannes Gehrke, Query Processing for Sensor Networks, Pro-ceedings of 1st Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR 2003), Asilomar, CA, Jan 2003.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    XinLi Young, Jin Kim, Ramesh Govindan and Wei Hong, Multi-dimensional Range Queries in Sensor Networks, SenSys03.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinbao Li
    • 1
  • Zhipeng Cai
    • 2
  • Jianzhong Li
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science & TechnologyHarbin Institute of TechnologyChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AlbertaCanada

Personalised recommendations