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 Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:18 GMT


David Smiley updated LUCENE-4895:

    Attachment: LUCENE-4895_Spatial_Disjoint_predicate.patch

Attached is a generic Filter implementing the disjoint predicate in terms of a provided SpatialStrategy's
support for intersects, as well as field designated to determine which docs have spatial data
via the FieldCache.

I have yet to integrate this with the existing strategies and test it because such things
would conflict with an outstanding spatial issue pending to be committed tonight.  So I'll
do these things tomorrow.
> 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
> 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