Deniz didn't mention document-to-document distance sort but he/she didn't say it wasn't that case either.
Any way, FYI at the Lucene level with LatLonPoint there is some sophisticated BKD search code to efficiently return the top N distance ordered documents (where you supply N). Although as far as I recall, it also has no filtering mechanism, so if you have any other filters (keyword/time/whatever), it wouldn't work. I once did this feature on an RPT index for a client and I got the open-source permission but I haven't gotten around to properly adding it to Solr. I might approach it a bit differently now. ~ David > On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:34 PM, Tim Casey <tca...@gmail.com> wrote: > > deniz, > > I was going to add something here. The reason what you want is probably > hard to do is because you are asking solr, which stores a document, to > return documents using an attribute of document pairs. As only a though > exercise, if you stored record pairs as a single document, you could > probably query it directly. That is, if you have d1 and d2 and you are > querying around d1 and ordering by distance, then you could get this > directly from a document representing a record pair. I don't think this is > practical, because it is an n^2 store. > > Since the n^2 problem is there, people are going to suggest some heuristic > which avoids this problem. What Erick is suggesting is down this path. > Query around a point and sort by distance taking the top K results. The > result is taking a linear slice of the n^2 distance attribute. > > tim > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Would it serve to sort by distance? True, if you matched a zillion >> documents within a 1km radius you'd still perform the distance calcs, but >> the result would be a manageable number. >> >> I have to ask "Why to you care?". Is this an efficiency question (i.e. you >> want to keep Solr from having to do expensive work) or is it a question of >> having to get hits at all? It's at least possible that the solution for one >> is not the solution for the other. >> >> Best, >> Erick >> >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 5:32 PM, deniz <denizdurmu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> it is for sure possible to use d value for limiting the distance, >> however, >>> it >>> might not be very efficient, as some of the coords may not have any docs >>> around for a large value of d... so it is hard to determine a default >> value >>> for d. >>> >>> though it sounds like havinga default d and gradual increments on its >> value >>> might be a work around for top K results... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Zeki ama calismiyor... Calissa yapar... >>> -- >>> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3. >>> nabble.com/Spatial-Search-based-on-the-amount-of-docs-not-the-distance- >>> tp4342108p4342258.html >>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>
