Jon Hines created SOLR-6534:
-------------------------------

             Summary: Multipolygon query problem with datelineRule=ccwRect
                 Key: SOLR-6534
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6534
             Project: Solr
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: spatial
    Affects Versions: 4.9
         Environment: Windows 7, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_45
            Reporter: Jon Hines


We are currently upgrading from Solr 4.1 to 4.9 and have observed some odd 
behavior with multipolygon queries now. It is difficult to describe what is 
happening so I took a screenshot with the documents and query area plotted on a 
map. You can see it here: [http://imgur.com/iBpYLMh] The blue areas represent 
the multipolygon and the purple areas represent the document footprints.

The query being used is as follows:
{quote}
geo:"Intersects(MULTIPOLYGON(((-3 2,4 2,4 8,-3 8,-3 2)),((-3 -11,4 -11,4 -4,-3 
-4,-3 -11))))
{quote}
This query returns all results when it should be returning only 8. If I run two 
separate queries with each individual polygon, I get 4 hits each as expected.

I've narrowed this down to a problem with using 'datelineRule=ccwRect'. If I 
remove this setting, the query returns with the expected results. 
Unfortunately, this setting is required for our software though, since handling 
large polygon queries (spanning >180 degrees) are a requirement.

Here are the relevant schema details:
{quote}
<field name="geo" type="location_rpt" indexed="true" stored="false"/>
<fieldType name="location_rpt" class="solr.SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType" 
spatialContextFactory="com.spatial4j.core.context.jts.JtsSpatialContextFactory"
geo="true" distErrPct="0.1" maxDistErr="0.000009" units="degrees"
datelineRule="ccwRect" normWrapLongitude="true" autoIndex="true"/>
{quote}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to