[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4895?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
David Smiley updated LUCENE-4895:
---------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-4895_Spatial_Disjoint_predicate.patch
The attached patch renames the filter to "DisjointSpatialFilter" to follow a
consistent naming convention with the other filters.
More importantly, it includes extensive randomized testing--not just for this
filter but for the other predicates supported by RecursivePrefixTreeStrategy
too. That testing is what triggered my discovery of two spatial bugs I
recently reported & fixed.
I plan to commit this in a couple days.
> Implement Spatial "disjoint" predicate.
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4895
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4895
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: modules/spatial
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Assignee: David Smiley
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 4.3
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-4895_Spatial_Disjoint_predicate.patch,
> LUCENE-4895_Spatial_Disjoint_predicate.patch
>
>
> The "IsDisjointTo" SpatialOperation is not implemented for
> RecursivePrefixTreeStrategy and some/all others(?). It has been very low
> priority because it is simply the inverse of "Intersects" which is
> universally implemented on the SpatialStrategy implementations.
> * Should spatial "disjoint" count documents that have no spatial data?
> * Arguably, there should be one implementation amongst the SpatialStrategies
> implemented in terms of "Intersects"; this way each strategy need not deal
> with it.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
