[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4895) Implement Spatial "disjoint" predicate.

["Ryan McKinley (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4895?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13619209#comment-13619209 ] 

Ryan McKinley commented on LUCENE-4895:
---------------------------------------

bq.  Should spatial "disjoint" count documents that have no spatial data?

Hopefully not -- I guess that implies we need a query for IsSpatial() or equivalent so IsDisjointTo() = IsSpatial() && !Intersects()




                
> Implement Spatial "disjoint" predicate.
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4895
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4895
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: modules/spatial
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Assignee: David Smiley
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 4.3
>
>
> The "IsDisjointTo" SpatialOperation is not implemented for RecursivePrefixTreeStrategy and some/all others(?). It has been very low priority because it is simply the inverse of "Intersects" which is universally implemented on the SpatialStrategy implementations.  
> * Should spatial "disjoint" count documents that have no spatial data?
> * Arguably, there should be one implementation amongst the SpatialStrategies implemented in terms of "Intersects"; this way each strategy need not deal with it.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org