You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by "Nicholas Knize (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2019/04/15 14:43:01 UTC
[jira] [Comment Edited] (LUCENE-8736) LatLonShapePolygonQuery
returning incorrect WITHIN results with shared boundaries
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8736?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16818019#comment-16818019 ]
Nicholas Knize edited comment on LUCENE-8736 at 4/15/19 2:42 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
{quote}it would be good to have an example where the determinant overflows as I haven't been able to exercise such an error.
{quote}
I'll see if I can grab an example. As expected, it doesn't occur when computing on encoded integer space; only decoded 64 bit double space.
{quote}I guess I don't see them as boundary failures.
{quote}
The issue I have is the behavior of excluding boundary points does not follow [OGC specifications;|http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=25355] which is the standard that geo systems _should_ follow; and the standard I think we should follow.
{quote}this patch really really hurts points
{quote}
Looking at the benchmarks I don't know that it _really_ _really_ hurts points. For me it's most important the behavior is correct. Then we can look at ways to improve performance? In this instance I think following the OGC community definition is probably best for defining "correct" behavior.
was (Author: nknize):
{quote}it would be good to have an example where the determinant overflows as I haven't been able to exercise such an error.
{quote}
I'll see if I can grab an example. As expected, it doesn't occur when computing on encoded integer space; only decoded 64 bit double space.
{quote}I guess I don't see them as boundary failures.
{quote}
The issue I have is the behavior of excluding boundary points does not follow [OGC specifications;|https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfa] which is the standard that geo systems _should_ follow; and the standard I think we should follow.
{quote}this patch really really hurts points
{quote}
Looking at the benchmarks I don't know that it _really_ _really_ hurts points. For me it's most important the behavior is correct. Then we can look at ways to improve performance? In this instance I think following the OGC community definition is probably best for defining "correct" behavior.
> LatLonShapePolygonQuery returning incorrect WITHIN results with shared boundaries
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8736
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8736
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Nicholas Knize
> Assignee: Nicholas Knize
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 8.1, master (9.0)
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-8736.patch, LUCENE-8736.patch, adaptive-decoding.patch
>
>
> Triangles that are {{WITHIN}} a target polygon query that also share a boundary with the polygon are incorrectly reported as {{CROSSES}} instead of {{INSIDE}}. This leads to incorrect {{WITHIN}} query results as demonstrated in the following test:
> {code:java}
> public void testWithinFailure() throws Exception {
> Directory dir = newDirectory();
> RandomIndexWriter w = new RandomIndexWriter(random(), dir);
> // test polygons:
> Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(new double[] {4d, 4d, 3d, 3d, 4d}, new double[] {3d, 4d, 4d, 3d, 3d});
> Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(new double[] {2d, 2d, 1d, 1d, 2d}, new double[] {6d, 7d, 7d, 6d, 6d});
> Polygon indexPoly3 = new Polygon(new double[] {1d, 1d, 0d, 0d, 1d}, new double[] {3d, 4d, 4d, 3d, 3d});
> Polygon indexPoly4 = new Polygon(new double[] {2d, 2d, 1d, 1d, 2d}, new double[] {0d, 1d, 1d, 0d, 0d});
> // index polygons:
> Document doc;
> addPolygonsToDoc(FIELDNAME, doc = new Document(), indexPoly1);
> w.addDocument(doc);
> addPolygonsToDoc(FIELDNAME, doc = new Document(), indexPoly2);
> w.addDocument(doc);
> addPolygonsToDoc(FIELDNAME, doc = new Document(), indexPoly3);
> w.addDocument(doc);
> addPolygonsToDoc(FIELDNAME, doc = new Document(), indexPoly4);
> w.addDocument(doc);
> ///// search //////
> IndexReader reader = w.getReader();
> w.close();
> IndexSearcher searcher = newSearcher(reader);
> Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {new Polygon(new double[] {4d, 4d, 0d, 0d, 4d}, new double[] {0d, 7d, 7d, 0d, 0d})};
> Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery(FIELDNAME, QueryRelation.WITHIN, searchPoly);
> assertEquals(4, searcher.count(q));
> IOUtils.close(w, reader, dir);
> }
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org