2011/2/16 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > "Konrad Garus" <konrad.ga...@gmail.com> writes: >> && operator seems to be broken for polygons whose bounding boxes intersect: > >> select polygon'((0,0), (1,2), (0,2))' && polygon'((0.5, 0), (1,0), (1,1))'; >> ?column? >> ---------- >> t >> (1 row) > > This is fixed as of 9.0; see the release notes at > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/release-9-0.html > which say > > Correct calculations of "overlaps" and "contains" operations for > polygons (Teodor Sigaev) > > The polygon && (overlaps) operator formerly just checked to see > if the two polygons' bounding boxes overlapped. It now does a > more correct check. The polygon @> and <@ (contains/contained > by) operators formerly checked to see if one polygon's vertexes > were all contained in the other; this can wrongly report "true" > for some non-convex polygons. Now they check that all line > segments of one polygon are contained in the other.
Thank you. How about the point of more informative docs that would explain supported types, automatic conversions and all such caveats (also for 8.3 and 8.4)? -- Konrad Garus -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
