I forgot to mention this..
At Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:11:16 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in
> Hello, I digged this topic covered by a spiderweb..
> # PostGIS requires so many libraries installed :(
> FIY, for the given test case, the following query hits the bug.
> | SELECT edge.geom AS geom
> | FROM (SELECT * FROM knn_recheck_geom) AS edge
> | ORDER BY '010100000014AE47E17A141FC09A99999999A170C0' <-> edge.geom LIMIT 2;
> At Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:18:55 -0500, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote
> in <ca+tgmoauhlf6r07sauzqircstf5kfrw7nwiwn4vzgisf8ma...@mail.gmail.com>
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote:
> > > It's still not quite clear to me even looking at that git commit, why
> > > those need to error instead of going thru recheck aside from efficiency.
> > The code that reorders the returned tuples assumes that (1) the actual
> > distance is always greater than or equal to the estimated distance and
> > (2) the index returns the tuples in order of increasing estimated
> > distance. Imagine that the estimated distances are 0, 1, 2, 3... and
> > the real distances are 2,3,4,5... When it sees the
> > estimated-distance-0 tuple it computes that the actual distance is 2,
> > but it doesn't know whether there's going to be a tuple later with an
> > actual distance between 0 and 2, so it buffers the tuple. When it sees
> > the estimated-distance-1 tuple it computes that the actual distance is
> > 2, and now it knows there won't be any more estimated or actual
> > distances between 0 and 1, but there could still be a tuple with an
> > estimated distance of 1 and 2 whose actual distance is also between 1
> > and 2, so it buffers the second tuple as well. When it sees the third
> > tuple, with estimated distance 2, it now knows that there won't be any
> > further tuples whose estimated or actual distance is less than 2. So
> > now it can emit the first tuple that it saw, because that had an
> > actual distance of 2 and from this point forward the index will never
> > return anything with a smaller estimated or actual distance. The
> > estimated-distance-1 tuple still has to stay in the buffer, though,
> > until we see a tuple whose estimated distance is greater than that
> > tuple's actual distance (3).
> The estimation is calculated using box2df_distance, and the
> recheck evaluation is using distnce (of libgeom).
> For the problematic case, the distance's result is
> "6.992999999999999439" and box2df_distance's is
> "6.993000030517578125" by "%20.18lf". The point should be just on
> the edge of its bounding box.
The binary representaions of the two are the following.
"40 1b f8 d4 fd f3 b6 45"
=(0:plus) (10000000001 = 2^(1025-1023) = *4) 1."bf8d4fdf3b645"
"40 1b f8 d5 00 00 00 00"
=(0:plus) (10000000001 = 2^(1025-1023) = *4) 1."bf8d500000000"
I mean, the estimation (box2df_distance) seems getting precision
reduction on its matissa. (I cannot say more than this, though)
> gserialized_gist_distance_2d() of PostGIS 2.3.0:
> > /* In all cases, since we only have keys (boxes) we'll return */
> > /* the minimum possible distance, which is the box2df_distance */
> > /* and let the recheck sort things out in the case of leaves */
> > distance = (double)box2df_distance(entry_box, &query_box);
> This theoretically doesn't give larger value than the real
> distance but it is failing. I'm not sure how to fix this but at
> least it is not a problem of GIST or PostgreSQL.
> If set the distance() of libgeom as the base, box2df_distance
> might should return a very-very slightly smaller value (I don't
> know how much it should be.) so that it can conseal the error of
> its operation.
NTT Open Source Software Center
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: