I tried to move the API toward this direction (
https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/10194) but I got pushed back.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 8:22 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe <tomasflo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks a lot Ignacio,
> This does seem to work. I'm wondering why this is not part of the query
> processing itself? Are there situations in which someone would not want
> this behavior?
>
> Tomas
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 11:02 AM Ignacio Vera <iver...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is actually expected as the query is trying to match the
> > original point with the encoded point in the index, therefore is not
> > matching. There are other cases where results are not as expected, for
> > example if you index the points from a polygon and then you make a
> polygon
> > query using that polygon, some of the points will intersect and some
> others
> > won't.
> >
> > In order to avoid these cases, what I do is to quantize the query
> > geometries (encode and decode all points). I found this is a more apple
> to
> > apple comparison, and the results are closer to what I would expect.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Ignacio
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 10:02 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe <
> > tomasflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > > I just noticed that If I add a document with a LatLonPoint field with a
> > > latitude and longitude, and then I do a query using
> > > "LatLonPoint.newGeometryQuery("location",
> > > ShapeField.QueryRelation.INTERSECTS, new Point(latitude, longitude))"
> > with
> > > the same latitude and longitude it won't match. Is this expected? If I
> > do a
> > > Distance query instead, even with radius 0 the document will match.
> > >
> > > My test here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/tflobbe/lucene/commit/a55e465a48dd8f5f978f4241a0a89e051044b6d3
> > >
> > > Tomas
> > >
> >
>
