[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4157?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13401974#comment-13401974
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-4157:
--------------------------------------
RE QuadPrefixTree, I'll see if I can reproduce your test errors. I'm not
surprised if the QuadPrefixTree.MAX_LEVELS_POSSIBLE is perhaps too big (notice
the comment at it's declaration "not really sure how big this should be".
Assuming the default 12 levels pass, I think we can find a safer max number to
use for the time being that is less than 50, and maybe one day when we have
time we can confidently determine exactly what it can support. I venture to
guess it might be similar to the mantissa of a double which is 53, but perhaps
not or maybe it's half that or something. FYI about 26 is needed for ~1meter
accuracy. If a non-geo scenario is needed, then who knows what your
requirements might be.
RE Testing of TermQueryPrefixGridStrategy, I agree that its tests are too
minimal, in Lucene spatial. FWIW, I'm about to update a patch to SOLR-3304 that
tests a variety of strategies against the same test code (based on test code
from Solr 3 spatial filter tests). TermQueryPrefixGridStrategy passes fine.
I definitely welcome any input on making the tests better overall. It's a bit
of a challenge because there are a variety of strategies, and some like
TwoDoublesStrategy are known to not yet support certain geo cases like the
poles (if I recall). I'm not sure if the idea of a test file of query cases
was your idea or Ryan's (e.g. cities-IsWithin-BBox), but instead or in
addition, I like the idea of automatically generating random data and queries,
and then double checking search results against a simple brute force algorithm.
If you don't feel any better about these two classes, then I like your
suggestion of not releasing them in 4.0 and leave in trunk.
> Improve Spatial Testing
> -----------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4157
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4157
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/spatial
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Assignee: David Smiley
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-4157_Improve_Lucene_Spatial_testing_p1.patch
>
>
> Looking back at the tests for the Lucene Spatial Module, they seem
> half-baked. (At least Spatial4j is well tested). I've started working on
> some improvements:
> * Some tests are in an abstract base class which have a subclass that
> provides a SpatialContext. The idea was that the same tests could test other
> contexts (such as geo vs not or different distance calculators (haversine vs
> vincenty) but this can be done using RandomizedTesting's nifty parameterized
> test feature, once there is a need to do this.
> * Port the complex geohash recursive prefix tree test that was developed on
> the Solr side to the Lucene side where it belongs.
> And some things are not tested or aren't well tested:
> * Distance order as the query score
> * Indexing shapes other than points (i.e. shapes with area / regions)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
