first of all: sorry for my poor english ..:(
>>* So a curve with 2 consecutive point like this
*>>* linestring (10 10, 20 20, 20 20, 30 30) is violating this definition
*>I disagree. In the formal definition of Curve above, note the condition
>that x1 < x2. In any continuous parameterization f o
Thanks Ben,
I will try what you suggested.
We only need to represent mobile cell tower, so geography might be too much for
the application. Especially consider there are much more functions for geometry
than geography.
Happy Easter:)
-Original Message-
From: postgis-users-boun...@post
G'day Li,
I can't help with Q2, but
On 01/04/2010, at 12:28 , Chen, Li [Contractor] wrote:
> Q1.
> ST_Buffer(g1, range) is able to return a geometry within the range of g1.
>
> So, I define two point using lon/lat (SRID=4326) and range 10km. I want to
> see whether they cross each other by us
Hi Everyone,
I am a newbie to this community and I would like to ask a question/s :).
Q1.
ST_Buffer(g1, range) is able to return a geometry within the range of g1.
So, I define two point using lon/lat (SRID=4326) and range 10km. I want to see
whether they cross each other by using ST_Crosses(g1,
Hi,
Thanks again for the suggestions. The default values for join_collapse_limit
and from_collapse_limit were set to 8 - I upped these both to 128, with no
observable difference.
I guess this issue is better suited for the general PostgreSQL mailing
lists...
Regards,
Mike
On Wednesday 31 Ma
Mike,
Couple of thoughts. Given you have so many joins, could be you are
reaching the join collapse limit and the planner is kicking out before
making an optimal plan.
Try increasing the join_collapse_limit and from_collapse_limit
As was detailed in this thread
http://archives.postgresql.org/
Andrea Peri 2007 wrote:
I think it would be invalid only in the domain of simple-features.
Not in general.
So I think is right think that for a geometric linestring
selfintersect, or having some consecutive or not consecutive (but
always internal) point repeated is invalid for a simple-featu
Andrea Peri 2007 wrote:
In the 6.1.5 paragraph of 06-103r3 is reported:
For MultiPoints:
..
A MultiPoint is simple if no two Points in the MultiPoint are equal
(have identical coordinate values in X and Y).
Every MultiPoint is spatially equal under the definition in Clause
6.1.15.3 to a si
I think it would be invalid only in the domain of simple-features.
Not in general.
So I think is right think that for a geometric linestring selfintersect, or having some consecutive
or not consecutive (but always internal) point repeated is invalid for a simple-feature world,
but it can be va
In the 6.1.5 paragraph of 06-103r3 is reported:
For MultiPoints:
..
A MultiPoint is simple if no two Points in the MultiPoint are equal (have
identical coordinate values in X and Y).
Every MultiPoint is spatially equal under the definition in Clause 6.1.15.3 to
a simple Multipoint.
..
For
Hi Mark,
I set effective_cache_size to 3072mb, and shared_buffers to 1024mb (as my
system
has a total of 4gb). This only slightly (if at all) improves the performance,
maybe reducing the query by somewhere around 500 ms (down to ~14700 ms). All
other parameters in the postgresql.conf are def
So you're saying that any geometry which contains consecutive duplicate
points is invalid?
This is a pretty major change to validity semantics.
(As a side note, I wouldn't say that validity doesn't apply to linear
features - just that there are few constraints on what constitutes a
valid lin
On 3/30/2010 11:46 PM, Andrea Peri wrote:
You can use the ST_IsSimple to know if a geometry is simple-feature.
If true it is simple-feature.
After, if you geometry is ST_IsSimpe = true,
you can test with ST_IsValid , to detect eventually invalidity for geometry.
So you can detect if it is a si
This polygon is valid according to the OGC SFS, and thus validates
correctly in PostGIS (also GEOS/JTS).
You'd have to look at the validation semantics of the other systems to
determine why they don't validate it. The OGC SFS model is fairly
tolerant in terms of trivial structural aspects - f
Mike Leahy wrote:
Mark/List,
I just replaced my postgresql.conf with the default copy that appears in
/etc/postgresql/8.4/main/ after a fresh install. The performance is pretty
much the same as before (maybe even about 400 ms worse than before).
Is there anything else I should try?
Mike
15 matches
Mail list logo
