lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Smiley (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LUCENE-4895) Implement Spatial "disjoint" predicate.
Date Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:59:16 GMT


David Smiley updated LUCENE-4895:

    Attachment: LUCENE-4895_Spatial_Disjoint_predicate.patch

The attached patch renames the filter to "DisjointSpatialFilter" to follow a consistent naming
convention with the other filters.  

More importantly, it includes extensive randomized testing--not just for this filter but for
the other predicates supported by RecursivePrefixTreeStrategy too.  That testing is what triggered
my discovery of two spatial bugs I recently reported & fixed.

I plan to commit this in a couple days.
> Implement Spatial "disjoint" predicate.
> ---------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4895
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: modules/spatial
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Assignee: David Smiley
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 4.3
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4895_Spatial_Disjoint_predicate.patch, LUCENE-4895_Spatial_Disjoint_predicate.patch
> 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:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message