Hi Mehak, Thanks for your email. One clear gap in SedonaSpark is the lack of a comprehensive test suite to verify behavioral consistency across SedonaSpark, SedonaDB, and PostGIS. In SedonaDB, we already have a framework in place to capture and validate these differences. It would be valuable to establish a similar framework for SedonaSpark.
Regards, Jia On Sun, Apr 26, 2026 at 2:01 AM mehak arora <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sedona community, > > I’ve recently started exploring Apache Sedona and have been looking > into its support for Boolean spatial predicates such as ST_Contains, > ST_Intersects, and ST_Within across different APIs (SQL and PySpark in > particular). > > While going through the documentation and trying out a few examples, I > became curious about the consistency of these predicates in terms of: > > 1. Behavior across APIs (SQL vs PySpark/Scala) > 2. Handling of edge cases (e.g., boundary-touching geometries, empty > or invalid geometries) > 3. Alignment with standards such as PostGIS / OGC definitions > > I wanted to ask: > Are there any known gaps, inconsistencies, or ongoing efforts in this > area where contributions would be useful? > > I’m particularly interested in contributing toward improving API > consistency, test coverage for edge cases, or documentation clarity if > that aligns with current priorities. > > Any pointers or guidance would be really helpful. > > Thanks for your time!
