When the job crosses models.
Consider 8DB for applications that combine spatial selection with native relationships and observations. The separate shipping benchmark demonstrates one such combination.
Explore the connected workflow ↗Explore the models / 8DB
Spatial data
Put the question in its place.
Relate locations, regions and movement to the records and events your application needs to understand.
Locate · measure · query
Model / Spatial dataConceptual diagram
The decision / Specialist context
Ask where. Then ask what happened there.
Location becomes more useful when it connects to time, ownership and evidence. A fast region query is one stage in that answer.
PostGIS
A broad catalogue of spatial predicates, transformations and geometry tools.
Read the source ↗Cesium
Geospatial 3D preparation and streaming for visualization workflows.
Read the source ↗WHAT THE WORK REQUIRES
OGC GeoSPARQL makes spatial meaning and interoperability explicit. ECMWF’s usability work adds a practical demand: select the data needed without wrestling with its representation.
Start with the operations
your question needs.
- n-dimensional linear/grid indexes
- Euclidean, Manhattan and Chebyshev metric choices
- Distinct geographic and point-cloud query paths
Documented product scope, reviewed 17 September 2026. The underlying build and deployment must be qualified for your application.
Units, coordinate system and metric determine meaning. Historical 2-D radius timings do not measure every dimension, geographic operator or full spatial application. Trajectory support needs its own operator qualification.
Connected native models
Keep the next question within reach.
8DB documents n-dimensional linear/grid indexes with declared distance metrics. The application opportunity is to combine the spatial candidate set with source-backed records and other models in the same data environment.
Keep the meaning in every observation.
Observe · window · analyze
Explore model ↗Make content part of the answer.
Represent · relate · retrieve
Explore model ↗Follow the relationship to a better answer.
Connect · traverse · follow
Explore model ↗These connections show the models involved in the application design. Compare the supported combination and full workflow with a realistic alternative.
Input → usable value / interactive design example
Review the evidence around a field inspection
Receive coordinates, time and a capture record
A path passes through a search region. Nearby observations can be connected to their time and source context.
Next: Check coordinates
Conceptual application workflow. Qualify the supported operations, external tools, protection and persistence for the complete path. These diagrams are explanatory, not measured results.
Read the complete workflow and comparison scope
- Receive coordinates, time and a capture record
- Validate units and the coordinate representation
- Find the relevant asset or spatial neighbourhood
- Retrieve recent readings, photos and inspection relations
- Return a localized evidence view for the reviewer
The useful response includes input validation, index availability, temporal selection, evidence joins and delivery. Geometry-library kernel timings describe only one part of that path.
Compare a realistic alternative.
PostGIS offers an extensive spatial function reference. Evaluate the exact geometry/geography functions, index paths and coordinate handling you need alongside 8DB’s mixed-model workflow.
PostGIS function referenceCompare equivalent outputs and required guarantees, including the simplest single-product alternative where one exists. A specialist may remain the better fit when its operators, ecosystem or operational maturity are decisive. Combining native models becomes valuable when your actual question crosses them.
Modality performance / Evidence reviewed 18 September 2026
Six million locations. A 14.7 ms filtering core.
milliseconds · radius filter Lower is better · linear scale from zero
8DB kernel14.7
Preloaded coordinates · count only
DuckDB query140
Reading and materializing results
SedonaDB query470
Reading and materializing results
Historical SF1 report; all shown paths reported 94 matches. Kernel and query timers cover different work, so these are not matched full-query speedups. GeoPandas is also in the source comparison at 13,140 ms; omitted from these bars to keep the other values readable.
Read the results, comparison and methods →What happens when models work together?
See the separate graphs + time series + spatial benchmark against SurrealDB →
01Exact geometry / neighbor results
02Cold & warm latency
03Index build & footprint
Include memory, storage, energy and hardware writes
Record build-time and serving memory separately, original and derived stored bytes, measured joules per completed job, and physical writes including indexing, compaction and recovery. A smaller representation does not by itself prove lower energy or longer device life.
Match correctness, freshness, durability and protection across alternatives. Encryption, authorization, adapters, network setup and output delivery belong in the complete-job comparison wherever required. No universal zero-overhead claim follows from these results.
Evaluate the result you need
Find relevant assets in a region during a time window, then explain their status.
Illustrative evaluation workflow · qualify the required operations and deployment
- 01Region and time
- 02Spatial candidates
- 03Ownership and readings
- 04Matched result
Geometry correctness
Match coordinate system, units and boundary behavior.
Complete-query latency
Include reads and materialized output on both sides.
Index and conversion cost
Count preparation, memory and data movement.
Bring the workload that matters to you.
Discuss an evaluation ↗We’ll use its output, quality and operating requirements to define a useful comparison.
Comparison scope, sources and next evidence
Recover matched cold/warm full-query timings; verify CRS, dimensions, precision and transformation scope instead of generalizing the historical 2D radius kernel.
Match the required correctness, freshness, durability and protection. Include ingestion, transformation, indexing and delivery in a complete-job result. Measure memory, stored bytes, energy and physical writes separately. Vendor descriptions establish offers, not independent rankings or 8DB compatibility.
- PostGIS reference Open-source extension documentation
- Cesium ion Vendor offer
- OGC GeoSPARQL Industry standard
- ECMWF data without friction User/operator demand
Market review: 20 September 2026 · Reference revision 3.0. Linked benchmark results retain their own dates and scope. Standards are evaluation context, not an 8DB certification.
Choose the path that fits your deployment.
Verify the supported API/SDK, data format, persistence and indexing behaviour for the release you plan to use. Match the operation-by-modality protection profile and device qualification to the workload.
Related articles
Take the next step into the thinking.
8DB spatial | 14.7 ms vs. 140–13,140 ms for GIS tools
Explore the measured path, comparison and conditions.
A City of Thirteen Million Entities on a Phone, With No JSON in the Hot Path
Explore the ideas and implementation context behind this capability.
One Sealed Store for Every Shape of Data, and It Works With the Network Gone
Explore the ideas and implementation context behind this capability.
Reference / Reviewed 17 September 2026
Readable, shareable and traceable.
This reference explains 8DB’s public modality description with an explicit workload and selection criteria. It is a documentary review, not fresh execution of every operator or platform.
Public sources: 8DB modality scope; PostGIS function reference; the related articles above. Internal source leads and outstanding release checks remain in the editorial record.
Download this referenceEvaluate the question
your application needs to answer.
Bring the data shapes, input state, expected output and the systems you use today. Define a comparison around that complete job.
Discuss your workload