Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 49598 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2009 12:01:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Dec 2009 12:01:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 15976 invoked by uid 500); 30 Dec 2009 12:01:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 15898 invoked by uid 500); 30 Dec 2009 12:01:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 15888 invoked by uid 99); 30 Dec 2009 12:01:32 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:01:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.210.192] (HELO mail-yx0-f192.google.com) (209.85.210.192) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:01:23 +0000 Received: by yxe30 with SMTP id 30so13625854yxe.29 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:01:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.255.5 with SMTP id c5mr18499723ybi.193.1262174461845; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:01:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1e33aedb0912282125k2f6dc673u98584f8ea24854c3@mail.gmail.com> <1e33aedb0912282349y48628cb8q7ddf9e24d4ad1d77@mail.gmail.com> <24ED15CB-2E08-40E8-BBF7-7ABA758AEABF@apache.org> <1e33aedb0912290854je7e6734m4f8d2d04acd44fba@mail.gmail.com> <20091229183211.GA8740@rectangular.com> <1e33aedb0912291114y75010ac5mf6d3813196346d6e@mail.gmail.com> <20091229202947.GA9132@rectangular.com> <20091229235522.GA9830@rectangular.com> <20091230001324.GB9830@rectangular.com> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:01:01 -0500 Message-ID: <9ac0c6aa0912300401x31faf3b2t72deda9df6ba83d5@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [spatial] Cartesian "Tiers" nomenclature From: Michael McCandless To: general@lucene.apache.org, yonik@lucidimagination.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Right, NRQ is able to translate any requested range into the union (OR) of brackets (from the trie) created during indexing. Can spatial do the same thing, just with 2D instead of 1D? Ie, reconstruct any expressible shape (created at query time) as the union of some number of grids/tiers, at finer & finer levels, created during indexing? Spatial, today, seems to do this, except it must also do "precise" filtering on each matching doc, because some of the grids may contain hits outside of the requested shape. In fact, NRQ could also borrow from spatial's current approach -- ie, create the union of some smallish number of coarse brackets. Some of the brackets will fall entirely within the requested range, and so require no further filtering, while others will fall part inside / part outside of the requested range, and so will require precise filtering. If NRQ did this, it should have much fewer postings to enum, at the cost of having to do precise filtering on some of them (and we'd have to somehow encode the orig value in the index). Mike On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey = wrote: >> ... but for this algorithm, different rasterization resolutions need not >> proceed by powers-of-two. > > Indeed - one way to further generalize would be to use something like > Lucene's trie-based Numeric field, but with a square instead of a > line. =A0That would allow to tweak the space/speed tradeoff. > > -Yonik > http://www.lucidimagination.com >