[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8736?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16815272#comment-16815272 ]
Ignacio Vera commented on LUCENE-8736: -------------------------------------- I have run my own benchmarks with this change and they look like: |Approach||Shape||M hits/sec dev||M hits/sec base||M hits/sec diff||QPS dev||QPS base||QPS diff||Hit count dev||Hit count base||Hit count diff|| |points|box|77.42|75.92| 2%|78.78|77.25| 2%|221118844|221118844| 0%| |points|polyRussia|15.99|18.42|-13%|4.56|5.25|-13%|3508846|3508846| 0%| |points|poly 10|76.02|76.57|-1%|48.07|48.42|-1%|355809475|355809475| 0%| |points|polyMedium|8.97|9.28|-3%|109.93|113.64|-3%|2693559|2693559| 0%| |shapes|box|35.51|36.40|-2%|36.13|37.04|-2%|221118844|221118844| 0%| |shapes|polyRussia|6.22|2.78|124%|1.77|0.79|124%|3508846|3508846| 0%| |shapes|poly 10|26.91|19.73|36%|17.01|12.48|36%|355809475|355809475| 0%| |shapes|polyMedium|2.71|1.06|156%|33.26|12.99|156%|2693559|2693559| 0%| In addition I run the similar benchmarks and indexing the points as lines and as polygons: |Approach||Shape||M hits/sec dev||M hits/sec base||M hits/sec diff||QPS dev||QPS base||QPS diff||Hit count dev||Hit count base||Hit count diff|| |line|box|35.42|35.56|-0%|35.91|36.05|-0%|221924270|221924270| 0%| |line|polyRussia|3.65|2.52|45%|1.04|0.72|45%|3510913|3510913| 0%| |line|poly 10|22.87|18.65|23%|14.43|11.76|23%|356664874|356664874| 0%| |line|polyMedium|1.09|0.73|50%|12.70|8.49|50%|2820569|2820569| 0%| |polygon|box|27.20|24.93| 9%|27.58|25.27| 9%|221925638|221925638| 0%| |polygon|polyRussia|1.85|1.77| 4%|0.53|0.51| 4%|3511839|3511839| 0%| |polygon|poly 10|13.11|14.05|-7%|8.26|8.85|-7%|357135836|357135836| 0%| |polygon|polyMedium|0.49|0.49| 1%|5.67|5.62| 1%|2857655|2857655| 0%| +1. I like this approach. Benchmarks show that adjusting the logic depending on the type of triangle as it really speeds up points and lines with a small hit on polygons (which might be due to the change in how contains is computed). Could we add a comment when we call tree#crossesBox regarding why we choose to include the boundaries? > LatLonShapePolygonQuery returning incorrect WITHIN results with shared > boundaries > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-8736 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8736 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Nicholas Knize > Priority: Major > Attachments: LUCENE-8736.patch, LUCENE-8736.patch, > adaptive-decoding.patch > > > Triangles that are {{WITHIN}} a target polygon query that also share a > boundary with the polygon are incorrectly reported as {{CROSSES}} instead of > {{INSIDE}}. This leads to incorrect {{WITHIN}} query results as demonstrated > in the following test: > {code:java} > public void testWithinFailure() throws Exception { > Directory dir = newDirectory(); > RandomIndexWriter w = new RandomIndexWriter(random(), dir); > // test polygons: > Polygon indexPoly1 = new Polygon(new double[] {4d, 4d, 3d, 3d, 4d}, new > double[] {3d, 4d, 4d, 3d, 3d}); > Polygon indexPoly2 = new Polygon(new double[] {2d, 2d, 1d, 1d, 2d}, new > double[] {6d, 7d, 7d, 6d, 6d}); > Polygon indexPoly3 = new Polygon(new double[] {1d, 1d, 0d, 0d, 1d}, new > double[] {3d, 4d, 4d, 3d, 3d}); > Polygon indexPoly4 = new Polygon(new double[] {2d, 2d, 1d, 1d, 2d}, new > double[] {0d, 1d, 1d, 0d, 0d}); > // index polygons: > Document doc; > addPolygonsToDoc(FIELDNAME, doc = new Document(), indexPoly1); > w.addDocument(doc); > addPolygonsToDoc(FIELDNAME, doc = new Document(), indexPoly2); > w.addDocument(doc); > addPolygonsToDoc(FIELDNAME, doc = new Document(), indexPoly3); > w.addDocument(doc); > addPolygonsToDoc(FIELDNAME, doc = new Document(), indexPoly4); > w.addDocument(doc); > ///// search ////// > IndexReader reader = w.getReader(); > w.close(); > IndexSearcher searcher = newSearcher(reader); > Polygon[] searchPoly = new Polygon[] {new Polygon(new double[] {4d, 4d, > 0d, 0d, 4d}, new double[] {0d, 7d, 7d, 0d, 0d})}; > Query q = LatLonShape.newPolygonQuery(FIELDNAME, QueryRelation.WITHIN, > searchPoly); > assertEquals(4, searcher.count(q)); > IOUtils.close(w, reader, dir); > } > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org