average: 380 ms
intersect average: 1100 ms
&& + relate average: 7200 ms
intersect + relate average: 7900 ms
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
William Kyngesburye
Sent: Fri 12/5/2008 5:34 PM
To: PostGIS Users Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-users] relat
2/5/2008 5:34 PM
To: PostGIS Users Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-users] relationship functions not working well
From what I read in the docs, Intersects first checks the bbox, then
does the full intersect test. While && just does a bbox test.
&& + st_relate gives me what I
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 4:33 PM
To: 'PostGIS Users Discussion'
Subject: RE: [postgis-users] relationship functions not working well
William,
Skip the intersects and use && instead (or just use ST_Intersects
which has
&& embedded in it).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William
Kyngesburye
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:31 PM
To: PostGIS Users Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-users] relationship functions not working well
On Dec 5, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
&
ECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William
Kyngesburye
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:31 PM
To: PostGIS Users Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-users] relationship functions not working well
On Dec 5, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> add
>
> wkb_geometry && SetSRI
On Dec 5, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
add
wkb_geometry && SetSRID('BOX3D(-162 55,-161 56)'::box3d,4326)
to your where clause to engage the index.
P
Do you mean just that, without the st_relate? That gives exactly the
same results as st_intersects, though may be a little faster si
add
wkb_geometry && SetSRID('BOX3D(-162 55,-161 56)'::box3d,4326)
to your where clause to engage the index.
P
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:26 AM, William Kyngesburye
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Martin Davis wrote:
>
>> Good news! I thought about this some more overni
Yep, relate doesn't automatically use the spatial index. You could also
use the && operator as a filter condition - that will avoid running
intersects unecessarily.
William Kyngesburye wrote:
On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Martin Davis wrote:
Good news! I thought about this some more overnigh
On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Martin Davis wrote:
Good news! I thought about this some more overnight, and I realized
that the relation "interior-intersects" should produce the result
you're looking for. This still doesn't have a named predicate, but
the really good news is that the IM pat
Good news! I thought about this some more overnight, and I realized
that the relation "interior-intersects" should produce the result you're
looking for. This still doesn't have a named predicate, but the really
good news is that the IM pattern for this is trivial: [T] .
(Exercise l
> This relation has quite a complex expression in terms of the IM pattern
> languge. It is:
>
> [T] or [*T***] or [***T*] or [T]
> and not ( [FT***] or [F**T*] or [F***T] )
>
> This is equivalent to:
>
> not ([FF*FF] or [FT***] or [F**T*] or [F***T*
On Dec 4, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Martin Davis wrote:
It sounds like you want the relationship "intersects-and-not-
touches" - does that sound right?
Sounds right, given the way these functions appear to behave.
This relation has quite a complex expression in terms of the IM
pattern languge. It
It sounds like you want the relationship "intersects-and-not-touches" -
does that sound right?
This relation has quite a complex expression in terms of the IM pattern
languge. It is:
[T] or [*T***] or [***T*] or [T]
and not ( [FT***] or [F**T*] or [F***T]
Can you show us your queries?
Some of these examples look a little funny -- i.e. did you query contain the
ST_xxx() function in the JOIN condition and the gometry construction?
-- like this:
select st_intersection(a,b) from t1 join t2
on st_intersects(a,b) ;
Dylan
On Thursday 04 December 2008
> When I was debugging my invalid geometry problem, I needed to select a small
> area to view. The data is divided up into 1 degree tiles (it's the SRTM
> SWBD shapefiles imported). I figured selecting by whole integer degrees
> would be simple to deal with.
>
> I started with st_overlaps(), as i
On Dec 4, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Nicolas Ribot wrote:
Did I miss an obvious function, or is there something that will get
what I
want? hmmm, maybe a combination (but would that slow it down a lot)?
Hi William,
Did you try st_relate() the the appropriate DE-9IM matrix ?
I can't give you the pat
On Dec 4, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Dylan Beaudette wrote:
Can you show us your queries?
Some of these examples look a little funny -- i.e. did you query
contain the
ST_xxx() function in the JOIN condition and the gometry construction?
-- like this:
select st_intersection(a,b) from t1 join t2
on st
17 matches
Mail list logo
