Incorrect Bounding Box calculation results in the exclusion of valid data 
locations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: LUCENE-2475
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2475
             Project: Lucene - Java
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: contrib/spatial
    Affects Versions: 3.0, 2.9.1
            Reporter: Julian Atkinson


I have found a scenario where some of my location data is not being returned.  
The calculated distance between my search origin and the data is well within my 
search radius but the data is not being returned. 

I have traced this down to what I think is an error when calculating the 
boundary box which is used to determine the Shape for the CartesianShapeFilter 
in  CartesianPolyFilterBuilder.getBoxShape()

The boundary box calculated by LLRect.createBox() is incorrect.  The box 
returned is a box that fits WITHIN the search circle, where the four corners of 
the box intersect the circle line. This creates 4 regions where data points are 
not included - these are regions that are in the circle but outside the box.

What I is required is a boundary box that fully CONTAINS the search circle.  As 
a side effect you would end up with 4 regions outside of the circle but inside 
the box.  This would potentially return data that are not real hits but these 
can be filtered out by a more precise distance comparison.

I will attach a test class that covers the issue with more details and a 
proposed fix - a one liner in LLRect.java

I would appreciate if someone could verify my findings.  All my data tests pass 
with this fix but there is one test case in Lucene 3.0.0 that fails and I can't 
figure out why.  TestCartesian.testAntiM().




-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to