[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7150?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15216995#comment-15216995
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-7150:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
That's fine as far as it goes but runs into two issues: (1) the distance
metric, and (2) how you specify shapes to search against.
{quote}
Its no a problem at all. For 1) pick something and be consistent. Its not
pluggable, its not optional, it does not need to be flexible here. For 2)
something dead simple like LatLonPoint.newPolygonQuery(String, double[],
double[]).
This *Point implementation we provide should be as simple and basic and natural
as possible. For anything else, someone can just make their own *Point class to
do something special.
> geo3d public APIs should match the 2D apis?
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7150
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7150
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
>
> I'm struggling to benchmark the equivalent to
> {{LatLonPoint.newDistanceQuery}} in the geo3d world.
> Ideally, I think we'd have a {{Geo3DPoint.newDistanceQuery}}? And it would
> take degrees, not radians, and radiusMeters, not an angle?
> And if I index and search using {{PlanetModel.SPHERE}} I think it should
> ideally give the same results as {{LatLonPoint.newDistanceQuery}}, which uses
> haversin.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
