On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Chris Male <gento...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> > >> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Chris Male wrote: > >> > For those doing just Cartesian Tier filtering it seems like the new > >> > approach is a win, but for those doing distance calculations on those > >> > documents passing the filter, it seems to come at a cost. > >> > >> Currently, this is only used for filtering. AIUI, Tiers aren't really > >> that useful for distance calculations, are they? After all, all you > have is > >> a box id and you'd have to reverse out the calc of that to be able to > calc a > >> distance, no? Perhaps I'm missing something. > >> > > > > How Spatial Lucene currently works (or at least one of the ways it was > > designed to work), is using a 2 step filtering process. Step 1 is the > > Cartesian Tier filtering. The resulting set of Documents is then passed > on > > through to Step 2 which then calculates the distance from each Document > to > > the search centre. > > IMO, being able to just do a tier or bounding box filter is also > useful (step 1). > One example is if someone is going to sort by distance anyway... they > may want to do only a bounding-box type filter for greater > performance. > > We should keep both concepts (bounding box filter and distance filter) > regardless of how the distance filter is implemented. > Definitely. > > -Yonik > Apache Lucene Eurocon 2010 > 18-21 May 2010 | Prague > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- Chris Male | Software Developer | JTeam BV.| www.jteam.nl
