maxDistErr should be like 0.3 based on earlier parts of this discussion since your data is to one of a couple hours of the day, not whole days. If it was whole days, you would use 1. Changing this requires a re-index. So does changing worldBounds if you do so. distErrPct should be 0. Changing it does not require a re-index because you are indexing points, not other shapes. This only affects other shapes.
Speaking of that slight buffer to the query shape I said in my last email, it should be < half of maxDistErr, whatever you set that to. So use like 0.1. ~ David Chris Atkinson wrote > Hi David, > Thanks for your continued help. > > I think that you have nailed it on the head for me. I'm 100% sure that I > had previously tried that query without success. I'm not sure if perhaps I > had wrong distErrPct or maxDistErr values... > It's getting late, so I'm going to call it a night (I'm on GMT), but I'll > put your example into practice tomorrow and get confirmation that it's > working as expected. > > I'll keep playing around with the distErrPct values as well. > Do I need to do a reindex if I change these values? (I think yes?) > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Smiley, David W. < > dsmiley@ > > wrote: > >> So "availability" is the absence of any other document's indexed time >> duration overlapping with your availability query duration. So I think >> you should negate an overlaps query. The overlaps query looks like: >> Intersects(-Inf start end Inf). And remember the slight buffering needed >> as described on the wiki. You'd add a small fraction to the start time >> and subtract a small fraction from the end time, so that you don't >> accidentally match a document that is adjacent. >> >> -availability_spatial:"Intersects( 0 30.5 114.5 3650 )" >> >> Does that work against your data? If it doesn't, can you conjecture why >> it doesn't work based on a sample point in a document that it matched, or >> a document that should have matched but didn't? >> >> ~ David >> >> On 6/4/13 3:31 PM, "Chris Atkinson" < > chrisacky@ > > wrote: >> >> >Here is an example I have tried. >> > >> >So let's assume that I want to checkIn on the 30th day, and leave on the >> >115th day. >> > >> >My query would be: >> > >> >-availability_spatial:"Intersects( 30 0 3650 115 )" >> > >> >However, that wouldn't match anything. Here is an example document below >> >so >> >you can see. (I've not negated the spatial field in the filter query so >> >you >> >can see the field coordinates) >> > >> >In case the formatting is bad: See here >> > >> >http://pastie.org/pastes/8006249/text >> > >> > >> > >> ><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <response> > > <lst >> > >name="responseHeader" >> >> > <int name="status"> > 0 > </int> > > <int name="QTime"> > 1 > </int> > > <lst >> > >>name="params"> < >> >str name="fl">availability_spatial > </str> > > <str name="indent"> > true > </str> >> > > <str >> > >name="q">id:38197 > </str> > > <str name="_"> > 1370374172298 > </str> > > <str name="wt"> >> >xml > </str> > > <str name="fq"> > availability_spatial:"Intersects( 30 0 3650 115 >> >)" >> > > </str> > > </lst> > > </lst> > > <result name="response" numFound="1" start="0"> >> > > <doc> > < >> >arr name="availability_spatial"> > <str> > 147.6 163.4 > </str> > > <str> > 164.6 178.4 > </ >> > >str> > <str> > 192.6 220.4 > </str> > > <str> > 241.6 264.4 > </str> > > </arr> > </doc> > > </result> >> > > </ >> > >response> >> > >> > >> >On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Chris Atkinson < > chrisacky@ > > >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks David. >> >> Query times are really quick and my index is only 20Mb now which is >> >>about >> >> what I would expect. >> >> I'm having some problems figuring out what type of query I want to >> find >> >> *Available* properties with this new points system. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm storing bookings against each document. So I have X Y coordinates, >> >> where X will be the check in of a previous booking, and Y will be the >> >> departure. >> >> >> >> So for example illustrative purposes, a weeks booking from 10th >> January >> >>to >> >> the 17th, would be X Y => 10 17 >> >> >> >> > <field name="booking"> > 10 17 > </field> >> >> > <field name="booking"> > 22 27 > </field> >> >> >> >> I might have several bookings. >> >> >> >> Now, I want to find available properties with my search, but I'm just >> >>not >> >> sure on the ordering of the end/start in the polygon Intersect. >> >> >> >> I've looked at this document very carefully and tried to draw it all >> out >> >> on paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://people.apache.org/~hossman/spatial-for-non-spatial-meetup-2013011 >> >>7/ >> >> >> >> Here are the suggestions: >> >> >> >> q=fieldX:"Intersects(-ƒ end start ƒ)" >> >> q=fieldX:"Intersects(-ƒ start end ƒ)" >> >> q=fieldX:"Intersects(start -ƒ ƒ end)" >> >> >> >> All of these, are great for finding the existance of a field >> coordinate, >> >> but I need to make sure that the property is available. So I thought I >> >> could use one of these three queries in the negative by using >> >> -fieldX:"Inter...." but none of those work. >> >> >> >> Can you shine some light on what I might be missing? >> >> What ordering would I want for *availability* >> >> Thanks very much. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Smiley, David W. >> >>< > dsmiley@ > >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Chris: >> >>> >> >>> Have you read: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpatialForTimeDurations >> >>> You're modeling your data sub-optimally. Full precision rectangles >> >>> (distErrPct=0) doesn't scale well and you're seeing that. You should >> >>> represent your durations as a point and it will take up a fraction of >> >>>the >> >>> space (see above). Furthermore, because your detail gets into one >> >>>digit >> >>> to the right of the decimal, your maxDistErr should definitely be >> >>>smaller >> >>> than 1 -- use something like 0.5 (given you have two levels of >> >>>precision >> >>> below a full day) but to be safer (more certain it's not a problem) >> use >> >>> 0.3 -- a little less. Please report back how that goes. >> >>> >> >>> ~ David >> >>> >> >>> On 6/3/13 7:27 AM, "Chris Atkinson" < > chrisacky@ > > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >Hi, >> >>> >I'm seeing really slow query times. 7-25 seconds when I run a simple >> >>> >filter >> >>> >query that uses my SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType field. >> >>> > >> >>> >My index is about 30k documents. Prior to adding the Spatial field, >> >>>the >> >>> on >> >>> >disk space was about 100Mb, so it's a really tiny index. Once I add >> >>>the >> >>> >spatial field (which is multi-values), the index size jumps up to >> 2GB. >> >>> (Is >> >>> >this normal?). >> >>> > >> >>> >Only about 10k documents will have any spatial data. Typically, they >> >>>will >> >>> >have at most 10 shapes each, but the majority are all one of two >> >>> >rectangles. >> >>> > >> >>> >This is my fieldType definition. >> >>> > >> >>> > > <fieldType name="date_availability" >> > >>> >class="solr.SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType" >> >>> > geo="false" >> >>> > worldBounds="0 0 3650 1" >> >>> > distErrPct="0" >> >>> > maxDistErr="1" >> >>> > units="degrees" >> >>> > /> >> >>> > >> >>> >And the field >> >>> > >> >>> > > <field name="availability_spatial" type="date_availability" >> > >>> > indexed="true" stored="false" multiValued="true" /> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >I am using the field to represent approximately 10 years after >> January >> >>> 1st >> >>> >2013, where each day is along the X-axis. Because the availability >> >>>starts >> >>> >and ends at 2pm and 10am, I was using a decimal place when creating >> my >> >>> >shape to show that detail. (Is this approach wrong?) >> >>> > >> >>> >So a typical rectangle when indexed would be (minX minY maxX maxY) >> >>> > >> >>> >Rectangle 100.6 0 120.4 1 >> >>> > >> >>> >Is it wrong that my Y and X values are not of the same scale? Since >> I >> >>> >don't >> >>> >care about the Y axis at all, I just set it to be of 1 height >> always. >> >>> > >> >>> >I'm running Solr 4.3, with a small JVM of 768M (can be increased). >> >>>And I >> >>> >have 2GB RAM. (Again can be increased). >> >>> > >> >>> >Thanks >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> ----- Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType-Spatial-Searching-tp4067778p4068216.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
