lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Schmidt <fakod...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Rethinking spatial implementation
Date Sat, 06 Nov 2010 21:23:24 GMT
Hi Ryan, thx for your answer.

You mean there is room for improvement and volunteers?

On Friday, November 5, 2010, Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christopher -
>
> I do not believe there is any active work on this.  From what I
> understand, the Tier implementation works OK within some constraints,
> but we could not get it to pass more robust testing that the other
> methods were using.
>
> However, LatLonType and GeoHashField are well tested and work well --
> the Tier type may have better performance when your index is really
> large, but no active developers understand it and no-one has stepped
> up to figure it out.
>
> ryan
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Christopher Schmidt
> <fakod666@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I saw a mail thread "Rethinking Cartesian Tiers implementation" (here).
>> Is there any work in progress regarding this? If yes, is the current
>> implementation deprecated or do you plan some enhancements (other
>> projections or spatial indexes) ?
>> I am asking because I want to use Lucene's spatial indexing in a production
>> system...
>>
>> --
>> Christopher
>> twitter: @fakod
>> blog: http://blog.fakod.eu
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Christopher
twitter: @fakod
blog: http://blog.fakod.eu

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


Mime
View raw message