[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7272?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Karl Wright resolved LUCENE-7272.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Won't Fix
> See if there's a way to cheapen geo3d's relationship calculations to make BKD
> Trees faster
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7272
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7272
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/spatial3d
> Affects Versions: master
> Reporter: Karl Wright
> Assignee: Karl Wright
>
> BKD Tree code does not make use of most of the fine relationship detail
> returned by getRelationship(). This means a lot of computation is going into
> figuring out fine details that gets simply wasted. We should consider having
> a much simpler related relationship method that returns only what BKD trees
> need to proceed.
> Here's the current code:
> {code}
> // First, check bounds. If the shape is entirely contained, return
> CELL_CROSSES_QUERY.
> if (shapeBounds.getMinimumX() >= xMin && shapeBounds.getMaximumX() <=
> xMax &&
> shapeBounds.getMinimumY() >= yMin && shapeBounds.getMaximumY() <= yMax
> &&
> shapeBounds.getMinimumZ() >= zMin && shapeBounds.getMaximumZ() <= zMax)
> {
> return Relation.CELL_CROSSES_QUERY;
> }
> // Quick test failed so do slower one...
> GeoArea xyzSolid = GeoAreaFactory.makeGeoArea(PlanetModel.WGS84, xMin,
> xMax, yMin, yMax, zMin, zMax);
> switch(xyzSolid.getRelationship(shape)) {
> case GeoArea.CONTAINS:
> // Shape fully contains the cell
> //System.out.println(" inside");
> return Relation.CELL_INSIDE_QUERY;
> case GeoArea.OVERLAPS:
> // They do overlap but neither contains the other:
> //System.out.println(" crosses1");
> return Relation.CELL_CROSSES_QUERY;
> case GeoArea.WITHIN:
> // Cell fully contains the shape:
> //System.out.println(" crosses2");
> // return Relation.SHAPE_INSIDE_CELL;
> return Relation.CELL_CROSSES_QUERY;
> case GeoArea.DISJOINT:
> // They do not overlap at all
> //System.out.println(" outside");
> return Relation.CELL_OUTSIDE_QUERY;
> default:
> assert false;
> return Relation.CELL_CROSSES_QUERY;
> }
> {code}
> It looks like only CELL_CROSSES_QUERY, CELL_OUTSIDE_QUERY, and
> CELL_INSIDE_QUERY are ever returned. This means we could (if computationally
> helpful) have a getRelationship() variant that only distinguishes between:
> GeoArea.DISJOINT
> GeoArea.CONTAINS
> GeoArea.OVERLAPS
> ... with no GeoArea.WITHIN detection. The question is, would this save
> significant computation?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
