Tables are well on JIRA : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2359

<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2359>Nicolas

2010/4/14 Helleringer, Nicolas <nicolas.hellerin...@novacodex.net>

> Here are the summary tables :
>
> First a table to remind metrics on the Tiers :
> Tile Level TierLegnth TierBoxes TileLength (miles) 0 1 1 24902 1 2 4 12451
> 2 4 16 6225,5 3 8 64 3112,75 4 16 256 1556,375 5 32 1024 778,1875 6 64 4096
> 389,09375 7 128 16384 194,546875 8 256 65536 97,2734375 9 512 262144
> 48,63671875 10 1024 1048576 24,31835938 11 2048 4194304 12,15917969 12 4096
> 16777216 6,079589844 13 8192 67108864 3,039794922 14 16384 268435456
> 1,519897461 15 32768 1073741824 0,75994873
>
>
> Then the comparaison table between legacy and new bestFit :
> Radius (miles) legacy bestFit legacy bestFit TileLength legacy bestFit max
> number of Box to fetch new bestFit new bestFit TileLength new bestFit number
> of Box to fetch 1 18 0,75994873 9 14 1,519897461 4 5 16 0,75994873 64 12
> 6,079589844 4 10 15 0,75994873 225 11 12,15917969 4 25 13 3,039794922 100 9
> 24,31835938 9 50 12 6,079589844 100 8 97,2734375 4 100 11 12,15917969 100 7
> 194,546875 4 250 10 24,31835938 144 6 389,09375 4 500 9 48,63671875 144 5
> 778,1875 4 1000 8 97,2734375 144 4 1556,375 4 2500 7 194,546875 196 3
> 3112,75 4 5000 6 389,09375 196 2 6225,5 4 10000 5 778,1875 196 1 12451 4
>
> I hope mailers will keep the formating ...
>
>
>
>
>
> If not I shall post on JIRA.
>
> Formulas :
> TileLength is 24902 (earth circumference) / TierLength
> bestFit formulas as summarized by Grant in his email.
> number of box to fetch : pow(ceil(TileLength/Radius)+1,2) =>
> TileLength/Radius is for how many tiles are needed to cover the radius, +1
> is because you are not always well aligned, the pow(X,2) because there is
> two directions/axis
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nicolas
>
> 2010/4/14 Chris Male <gento...@gmail.com>
>
> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Chris Male wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > My understanding of the benefits of the new algorithm is that it means
>>> a lower tier level resulting in fewer boxes, but more documents inside those
>>> boxes that are outside of the search radius.
>>> >
>>> > While having fewer boxes means fewer term queries to make against the
>>> index, more documents means more costly calculations to filter out those
>>> extraneous documents.
>>> >
>>> > 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.  If the distance is greater than the radius, the Document
>> is filtered out.  This means that after both filtering steps you have only
>> those Documents that are in the search radius.
>>
>> How this impacts this algorithm choice is that the more Documents the pass
>> through Step 1, the more calculations that have to be done in Step 2.
>>
>>
>>> I'm not sure, however, that it is a win for filtering.  It seems like you
>>> end up including docs in the result set that should be in there.
>>>
>>> I'll wait for Nicolas' summary table, but I'm inclined to revert and then
>>> someone can refactor if they want to offer alternate implementations.
>>>
>>> -Grant
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>
>

Reply via email to