On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> I guess it was obvious but that was "expect the *penalty* function to
> obey the triangle inequality"
>
Actually, penalty function for boxes is even not commutative. Fox example:
A = ((0,0)-(1,1))
B = ((0,0)-(2,2))
penalty(A,B) = 3
penalty(B,A
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do gistchoose et al expect the triangle function to obey the triangle
>> inequality?
>
> Don't think so.
>
I guess it was obvious but that was "expect the *penalty* function to
obey the triangle inequality"
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark writes:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Prevent problems by clamping negative penalty values to
>> zero. (Just to be really sure, I also made it force NaNs to zero.)
> Do gistchoose et al expect the triangle function to obey the triangle
> inequality?
Don't th
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Prevent problems by clamping negative penalty values to
> zero. (Just to be really sure, I also made it force NaNs to zero.)
Do gistchoose et al expect the triangle function to obey the triangle
inequality? If so isn't it possible treating NaNs
