On Mar 26, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: >> Not really related to this issue, so moving to dev@... >> >> On Mar 26, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Robert Muir (JIRA) wrote: >> >>> >>> [ >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2155?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13011616#comment-13011616 >>> ] >>> >>> Robert Muir commented on SOLR-2155: >>> ----------------------------------- >>> >>> well what would the deprecation have suggested as an alternative? >> >> It's a good question. The tier stuff, IMO and confirmed by others is broken >> for most of the world. I sunk a good week into fixing it and was so >> entangled in the spaghetti that I gave up. What we laid out on another >> issue (I forget the number, but I think C Male owns it and says he has a >> rewrite) is to move to modules, keep what we can (geohash and some of the >> utils) and gut the rest. That combined w/ moving function queries to >> modules would make all of spatial a good solution for the large majority of >> users. The only thing that would remain to be back to our current state (at >> least in terms of features) would be to implement a tier approach. I've >> proposed the Military Grid System (there is an open JIRA issue for it) as >> something that looks to be as a good candidate. It's well documented on the >> web and uses a metric for all distances and has the benefit that all of NATO >> uses it, albeit for different purposes. It also addresses the poles and the >> meridians as first class citizens. It just needs an implementer. Having >> said that, I'm not 100% certain. I also don't know that the tier stuff is >> absolutely necessary. The combination of what we have in function queries >> plus trie fields makes for a very fast spatial lookup at this point. >> >> I'm totally open to other suggestions, however. >> >> Longer term, I've got a lot of ideas for spatial, but that's a different >> thread. >> > > I guess the reason I asked my question is more high-level: on one hand > there are suggestions that lucene's spatial package should have been > deprecated in 3.1, but on the other hand the very first feature on > solr 3.1's new feature list is 'improved geospatial support'. >
It really should say: Added Geospatial Support, as it was non-existent in Solr before. Most of the work for adding in spatial in Solr consisted of improving things in Solr to make it easy to leverage the one spatial feature we really added: distance based functions and parsing support. Everything else was generally useful things: sorting by function, poly fields, etc. I started on tier support, but dropped it when I realized it was broken beyond repair. The Solr stuff uses, IMO, the stuff in Lucene that works and ignores the rest. I seem to recall Chris had said that once I got done w/ the Solr stuff he would do the modules work, but it hasn't happened yet. I'd say in 3.2, since it sounds like Chris did at least deprecate contrib/spatial, that we work to get all of this resolved: spatial -> modules, function queries -> modules. Naturally we should do it on trunk, too. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
