[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14266784#comment-14266784
 ] 

David Smiley commented on SOLR-4242:
------------------------------------

Returning distances/boost:

I meant that st_distance could be an alias to geodist().

To further align with the st_* naming, we could add st_area, st_area2d, and 
st_recipDistance and furthermore, along with st_distance, add support for 
referencing the wkt request param.  It'd be nice if in SOLR-6797 we had 
distanceUnits as a request param since then it'd be easy to use 'km' without 
having to know what to supply to sphere_radius.  Oh yeah, sphere_radius is 
purely understood by geofilt.

The filtering/predicates (e.g. st_dwithin, st_intersects...) could work with 
the score=... local-param to not only filter but yield the distance as the 
score.  That will probably _just work_.

> A better spatial query parser
> -----------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-4242
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4242
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: spatial
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>             Fix For: 4.9, Trunk
>
>
> I've been thinking about how spatial support is exposed to Solr users. 
> Presently there's the older Solr 3 stuff, most prominently seen via 
> \{!geofilt} and \{!bbox} done by [~gsingers] (I think). and then there's the 
> Solr 4 fields using a special syntax parsed by Lucene 4 spatial that looks 
> like mygeofield:"Intersects(Circle(1 2 d=3))" What's inside the outer 
> parenthesis is parsed by Spatial4j as a shape, and it has a special 
> (non-standard) syntax for points, rects, and circles, and then there's WKT.  
> I believe this scheme was devised by [~ryantxu].
> I'd like to devise something that is both comprehensive and is aligned with 
> standards to the extent that it's prudent.  The old Solr 3 stuff is not 
> comprehensive and not standardized.  The newer stuff is comprehensive but 
> only a little based on standards. And I think it'd be nicer to implement it 
> as a Solr query parser.  I'll say more in the comments.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

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

Reply via email to