[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8669) LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the dateline
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16757786#comment-16757786
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-8669:
-
Commit be471ea91d53ae9b362f223e4fafecc612b4d309 in lucene-solr's branch
refs/heads/branch_7_7 from Nicholas Knize
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=be471ea ]
LUCENE-8669: Fix LatLonShape WITHIN queries that fail with Multiple search
Polygons that share the dateline.
> LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the
> dateline
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-8669
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 8.0, 7.7
>Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>Assignee: Nicholas Knize
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: LUCENE-8669.patch
>
>
> {{LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery}} does not support dateline crossing polygons.
> It is therefore up to the calling application / user to split dateline
> crossing polygons into a {{MultiPolygon}} query with two search polygons that
> share the dateline. This, however, does not produce expected results because
> {{EdgeTree.internalComponentRelateTriangle}} does not differentiate between a
> triangle that {{CROSSES}} or is {{WITHIN}} the target polygon. Therefore
> {{MultiPolygon}} {{WITHIN}} queries that share the dateline behave as an
> {{INTERSECT}} and will therefore produce incorrect results.
> Consider the following test, for example:
> {code:java}
> // index
> // western poly
> Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {-7.5d, 15d, 15d, 0d, -7.5d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -176d, -176d, -180d}
> );
> // eastern poly
> Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {15d, -7.5d, -15d, -10d, 15d, 15d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 176d, 174d, 176d, 180d}
> );
> index
> Field[] fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly1);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly2);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> writer.addDocument(doc);
> / search //
> Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {
> new Polygon(new double[] {-20d, 20d, 20d, -20d, -20d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -170d, -170d, -180d}),
> new Polygon(new double[] {20d, -20d, -20d, 20d, 20d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 170d, 170d, 180d})
> };
> Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery("test", QueryRelation.WITHIN,
> searchPoly);
> assertEquals(1, searcher.count(q));
> {code}
>
> In the example above, a dateline spanning polygon is indexed as a
> {{MultiPolygon}} with two polygons that share the dateline. Similarly, a
> polygon that spans the dateline is provided as two polygons that share the
> dateline in a {{WITHIN}} query. The indexed polygon should be returned as a
> match; but it does not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8669) LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the dateline
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16757781#comment-16757781
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-8669:
-
Commit 3e5bc5c2ebb66a189f3d791d23ccc23ba17543b6 in lucene-solr's branch
refs/heads/branch_7x from Nicholas Knize
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=3e5bc5c ]
LUCENE-8669: Fix LatLonShape WITHIN queries that fail with Multiple search
Polygons that share the dateline.
> LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the
> dateline
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-8669
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 8.0, 7.7
>Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>Assignee: Nicholas Knize
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: LUCENE-8669.patch
>
>
> {{LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery}} does not support dateline crossing polygons.
> It is therefore up to the calling application / user to split dateline
> crossing polygons into a {{MultiPolygon}} query with two search polygons that
> share the dateline. This, however, does not produce expected results because
> {{EdgeTree.internalComponentRelateTriangle}} does not differentiate between a
> triangle that {{CROSSES}} or is {{WITHIN}} the target polygon. Therefore
> {{MultiPolygon}} {{WITHIN}} queries that share the dateline behave as an
> {{INTERSECT}} and will therefore produce incorrect results.
> Consider the following test, for example:
> {code:java}
> // index
> // western poly
> Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {-7.5d, 15d, 15d, 0d, -7.5d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -176d, -176d, -180d}
> );
> // eastern poly
> Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {15d, -7.5d, -15d, -10d, 15d, 15d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 176d, 174d, 176d, 180d}
> );
> index
> Field[] fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly1);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly2);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> writer.addDocument(doc);
> / search //
> Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {
> new Polygon(new double[] {-20d, 20d, 20d, -20d, -20d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -170d, -170d, -180d}),
> new Polygon(new double[] {20d, -20d, -20d, 20d, 20d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 170d, 170d, 180d})
> };
> Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery("test", QueryRelation.WITHIN,
> searchPoly);
> assertEquals(1, searcher.count(q));
> {code}
>
> In the example above, a dateline spanning polygon is indexed as a
> {{MultiPolygon}} with two polygons that share the dateline. Similarly, a
> polygon that spans the dateline is provided as two polygons that share the
> dateline in a {{WITHIN}} query. The indexed polygon should be returned as a
> match; but it does not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8669) LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the dateline
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=1675#comment-1675
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-8669:
-
Commit fd92d54b38a7a7048e84ff20b2d26e6c05e116e7 in lucene-solr's branch
refs/heads/branch_8_0 from Nicholas Knize
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=fd92d54 ]
LUCENE-8669: Fix LatLonShape WITHIN queries that fail with Multiple search
Polygons that share the dateline.
> LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the
> dateline
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-8669
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 8.0, 7.7
>Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>Assignee: Nicholas Knize
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: LUCENE-8669.patch
>
>
> {{LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery}} does not support dateline crossing polygons.
> It is therefore up to the calling application / user to split dateline
> crossing polygons into a {{MultiPolygon}} query with two search polygons that
> share the dateline. This, however, does not produce expected results because
> {{EdgeTree.internalComponentRelateTriangle}} does not differentiate between a
> triangle that {{CROSSES}} or is {{WITHIN}} the target polygon. Therefore
> {{MultiPolygon}} {{WITHIN}} queries that share the dateline behave as an
> {{INTERSECT}} and will therefore produce incorrect results.
> Consider the following test, for example:
> {code:java}
> // index
> // western poly
> Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {-7.5d, 15d, 15d, 0d, -7.5d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -176d, -176d, -180d}
> );
> // eastern poly
> Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {15d, -7.5d, -15d, -10d, 15d, 15d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 176d, 174d, 176d, 180d}
> );
> index
> Field[] fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly1);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly2);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> writer.addDocument(doc);
> / search //
> Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {
> new Polygon(new double[] {-20d, 20d, 20d, -20d, -20d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -170d, -170d, -180d}),
> new Polygon(new double[] {20d, -20d, -20d, 20d, 20d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 170d, 170d, 180d})
> };
> Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery("test", QueryRelation.WITHIN,
> searchPoly);
> assertEquals(1, searcher.count(q));
> {code}
>
> In the example above, a dateline spanning polygon is indexed as a
> {{MultiPolygon}} with two polygons that share the dateline. Similarly, a
> polygon that spans the dateline is provided as two polygons that share the
> dateline in a {{WITHIN}} query. The indexed polygon should be returned as a
> match; but it does not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8669) LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the dateline
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16757769#comment-16757769
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-8669:
-
Commit fade1a091bfa2b7733c37b47a96ee8adbd3c8583 in lucene-solr's branch
refs/heads/branch_8x from Nicholas Knize
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=fade1a0 ]
LUCENE-8669: Fix LatLonShape WITHIN queries that fail with Multiple search
Polygons that share the dateline.
> LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the
> dateline
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-8669
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 8.0, 7.7
>Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>Assignee: Nicholas Knize
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: LUCENE-8669.patch
>
>
> {{LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery}} does not support dateline crossing polygons.
> It is therefore up to the calling application / user to split dateline
> crossing polygons into a {{MultiPolygon}} query with two search polygons that
> share the dateline. This, however, does not produce expected results because
> {{EdgeTree.internalComponentRelateTriangle}} does not differentiate between a
> triangle that {{CROSSES}} or is {{WITHIN}} the target polygon. Therefore
> {{MultiPolygon}} {{WITHIN}} queries that share the dateline behave as an
> {{INTERSECT}} and will therefore produce incorrect results.
> Consider the following test, for example:
> {code:java}
> // index
> // western poly
> Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {-7.5d, 15d, 15d, 0d, -7.5d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -176d, -176d, -180d}
> );
> // eastern poly
> Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {15d, -7.5d, -15d, -10d, 15d, 15d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 176d, 174d, 176d, 180d}
> );
> index
> Field[] fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly1);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly2);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> writer.addDocument(doc);
> / search //
> Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {
> new Polygon(new double[] {-20d, 20d, 20d, -20d, -20d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -170d, -170d, -180d}),
> new Polygon(new double[] {20d, -20d, -20d, 20d, 20d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 170d, 170d, 180d})
> };
> Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery("test", QueryRelation.WITHIN,
> searchPoly);
> assertEquals(1, searcher.count(q));
> {code}
>
> In the example above, a dateline spanning polygon is indexed as a
> {{MultiPolygon}} with two polygons that share the dateline. Similarly, a
> polygon that spans the dateline is provided as two polygons that share the
> dateline in a {{WITHIN}} query. The indexed polygon should be returned as a
> match; but it does not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8669) LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the dateline
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16757765#comment-16757765
]
Nicholas Knize commented on LUCENE-8669:
Thanks [~ivera] I agree on the testing. With this one being a blocker I'll go
ahead and commit as is then add some more thorough randomized testing beyond
the simple explicit testing that is provided.
> LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the
> dateline
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-8669
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 8.0, 7.7
>Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>Assignee: Nicholas Knize
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: LUCENE-8669.patch
>
>
> {{LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery}} does not support dateline crossing polygons.
> It is therefore up to the calling application / user to split dateline
> crossing polygons into a {{MultiPolygon}} query with two search polygons that
> share the dateline. This, however, does not produce expected results because
> {{EdgeTree.internalComponentRelateTriangle}} does not differentiate between a
> triangle that {{CROSSES}} or is {{WITHIN}} the target polygon. Therefore
> {{MultiPolygon}} {{WITHIN}} queries that share the dateline behave as an
> {{INTERSECT}} and will therefore produce incorrect results.
> Consider the following test, for example:
> {code:java}
> // index
> // western poly
> Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {-7.5d, 15d, 15d, 0d, -7.5d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -176d, -176d, -180d}
> );
> // eastern poly
> Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {15d, -7.5d, -15d, -10d, 15d, 15d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 176d, 174d, 176d, 180d}
> );
> index
> Field[] fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly1);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly2);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> writer.addDocument(doc);
> / search //
> Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {
> new Polygon(new double[] {-20d, 20d, 20d, -20d, -20d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -170d, -170d, -180d}),
> new Polygon(new double[] {20d, -20d, -20d, 20d, 20d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 170d, 170d, 180d})
> };
> Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery("test", QueryRelation.WITHIN,
> searchPoly);
> assertEquals(1, searcher.count(q));
> {code}
>
> In the example above, a dateline spanning polygon is indexed as a
> {{MultiPolygon}} with two polygons that share the dateline. Similarly, a
> polygon that spans the dateline is provided as two polygons that share the
> dateline in a {{WITHIN}} query. The indexed polygon should be returned as a
> match; but it does not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8669) LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the dateline
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16757767#comment-16757767
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-8669:
-
Commit edb05314b315acf9abc4f9fdb3d30e17aff7feba in lucene-solr's branch
refs/heads/master from Nicholas Knize
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=edb0531 ]
LUCENE-8669: Fix LatLonShape WITHIN queries that fail with Multiple search
Polygons that share the dateline.
> LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the
> dateline
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-8669
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 8.0, 7.7
>Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>Assignee: Nicholas Knize
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: LUCENE-8669.patch
>
>
> {{LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery}} does not support dateline crossing polygons.
> It is therefore up to the calling application / user to split dateline
> crossing polygons into a {{MultiPolygon}} query with two search polygons that
> share the dateline. This, however, does not produce expected results because
> {{EdgeTree.internalComponentRelateTriangle}} does not differentiate between a
> triangle that {{CROSSES}} or is {{WITHIN}} the target polygon. Therefore
> {{MultiPolygon}} {{WITHIN}} queries that share the dateline behave as an
> {{INTERSECT}} and will therefore produce incorrect results.
> Consider the following test, for example:
> {code:java}
> // index
> // western poly
> Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {-7.5d, 15d, 15d, 0d, -7.5d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -176d, -176d, -180d}
> );
> // eastern poly
> Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {15d, -7.5d, -15d, -10d, 15d, 15d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 176d, 174d, 176d, 180d}
> );
> index
> Field[] fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly1);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly2);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> writer.addDocument(doc);
> / search //
> Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {
> new Polygon(new double[] {-20d, 20d, 20d, -20d, -20d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -170d, -170d, -180d}),
> new Polygon(new double[] {20d, -20d, -20d, 20d, 20d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 170d, 170d, 180d})
> };
> Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery("test", QueryRelation.WITHIN,
> searchPoly);
> assertEquals(1, searcher.count(q));
> {code}
>
> In the example above, a dateline spanning polygon is indexed as a
> {{MultiPolygon}} with two polygons that share the dateline. Similarly, a
> polygon that spans the dateline is provided as two polygons that share the
> dateline in a {{WITHIN}} query. The indexed polygon should be returned as a
> match; but it does not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8669) LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the dateline
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16757071#comment-16757071
]
Ignacio Vera commented on LUCENE-8669:
--
+1 thanks [~nknize]. When working on LUCENE-8620 I had the impression that we
needed to distinguish between lines fully crossing and touching edges.
Something nice to have is some specific tests for GeoUtils#lineRelateLine that
describe the expected behaviour.
> LatLonShape WITHIN queries fail with Multiple search Polygons that share the
> dateline
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-8669
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 8.0, 7.7
>Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>Assignee: Nicholas Knize
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: LUCENE-8669.patch
>
>
> {{LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery}} does not support dateline crossing polygons.
> It is therefore up to the calling application / user to split dateline
> crossing polygons into a {{MultiPolygon}} query with two search polygons that
> share the dateline. This, however, does not produce expected results because
> {{EdgeTree.internalComponentRelateTriangle}} does not differentiate between a
> triangle that {{CROSSES}} or is {{WITHIN}} the target polygon. Therefore
> {{MultiPolygon}} {{WITHIN}} queries that share the dateline behave as an
> {{INTERSECT}} and will therefore produce incorrect results.
> Consider the following test, for example:
> {code:java}
> // index
> // western poly
> Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {-7.5d, 15d, 15d, 0d, -7.5d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -176d, -176d, -180d}
> );
> // eastern poly
> Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(
> new double[] {15d, -7.5d, -15d, -10d, 15d, 15d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 176d, 174d, 176d, 180d}
> );
> index
> Field[] fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly1);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> fields = LatLonShape.createIndexableFields("test", indexPoly2);
> for (Field f : fields) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
> writer.addDocument(doc);
> / search //
> Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {
> new Polygon(new double[] {-20d, 20d, 20d, -20d, -20d},
> new double[] {-180d, -180d, -170d, -170d, -180d}),
> new Polygon(new double[] {20d, -20d, -20d, 20d, 20d},
> new double[] {180d, 180d, 170d, 170d, 180d})
> };
> Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery("test", QueryRelation.WITHIN,
> searchPoly);
> assertEquals(1, searcher.count(q));
> {code}
>
> In the example above, a dateline spanning polygon is indexed as a
> {{MultiPolygon}} with two polygons that share the dateline. Similarly, a
> polygon that spans the dateline is provided as two polygons that share the
> dateline in a {{WITHIN}} query. The indexed polygon should be returned as a
> match; but it does not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
