[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7147?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Ryan Ernst updated LUCENE-7147:
-------------------------------
    Attachment: example-intersects-bbox-not-circle.html
                example-crosses-axis-not-center.html

I've attached 2 examples.They both use the same geo distance query. Imagine 
someone from London says "I want to find places to travel within 1143km". So 
they do a distance search. The "intersects bbox not circle" example shows how 
this would require us to compute the distances from london to all the points 
indexes in the box covering Italy. The second example shows how if we were to 
use the naive approach of using the latitude of the circle center, we would 
incorrectly exclude a chunk of Poland thinking it did not intersect the circle 
because all corners are outside the circle, and it lies completely above the 
circle center latitude, but in fact it crosses the axis of the bbox.

> Improve disjoint check for geo distance query traversal
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-7147
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7147
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Ryan Ernst
>         Attachments: LUCENE-7147.patch, example-crosses-axis-not-center.html, 
> example-intersects-bbox-not-circle.html
>
>
> When doing geo distance queries, it is important to avoid traversing subtrees 
> which do not contain any relevant points. We currently have checks which 
> compare the bbox of the query to the bounds of the subtree. However, it is 
> possible for a subtree to overlap the bbox, but still not intersect the 
> query. This issue is to improve that check to avoid unnecessary traversals.



--
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