bobo-contrib upgrade

[Ken McCracken]

Hi,

We are thinking of making the bobo-contrib upgrade a permanent switch to cartesian coordinates.  Is there any objection to dropping support for reading the previous .geo index syntax?  We are inclined to just re-index for our purposes. 

This message only impacts bobo-contrib.

Cheers,
-Ken

[John Wang]

No objections here.

Thanks

-John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bobo-browse" group.
To post to this group, send email to bobo-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bobo-browse...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bobo-browse?hl=en.

[Geoff Cooney]

Hi,

We have recently completed the changes to move bobo-contrib to cartesian coordinates(with no backwards compatibility support for the old .geo index syntax).  Anyone upgrading to this latest version of bobo will need to reindex.  

The proposed changes can be seen on my fork: https://github.com/gcooney/bobo.  They are constricted to the bobo-contrib module.  Is there any objection to me merging these changes to the master repository?

Also, does bobo have a policy/preference on how to merge large changesets?   e.g. is just git merge ok or should I be rebasing into a less granular commit set.

Cheers,

Geoff

[John Wang]

Thanks Geoff!

I think next step for Bobo is Lucene 4.0 upgrade. I see there is a
spatial package there. Did a brief scan, it contains geohash and
quadtree impl. Can this be merged with that?

Thanks

-John

On Jul 13, 12:31 pm, Geoff Cooney <cooney.ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have recently completed the changes to move bobo-contrib to cartesian
> coordinates(with no backwards compatibility support for the old .geo index
> syntax).  Anyone upgrading to this latest version of bobo will need to
> reindex.
>
> The proposed changes can be seen on my fork:https://github.com/gcooney/bobo.
>  They are constricted to the bobo-contrib module.  Is there any objection
> to me merging these changes to the master repository?
>
> Also, does bobo have a policy/preference on how to merge large changesets?
>   e.g. is just git merge ok or should I be rebasing into a less granular
> commit set.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:52 PM, John Wang <john.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No objections here.
>
> > Thanks
>
> > -John
>

[Geoff Cooney]

Hi John,

Short answer is I'm not sure.

Longer answer is that I'm aware of the geo spatial library but not very familiar with it.  I'm pretty sure they support a much broader range of geometric search shapes, which we'd like to do.  I think next steps for us on that front are:

1)  Do a basic performance comparison between bobo-contrib and the geo spatial library to determine if we should just switch to using lucene geo spatial extension all together.

2)  Investigate the code for the geo spatial library and figure out if we can merge with it.

Cheers,

Geoff

[John Wang]

Thanks Geoff!

This makes sense. Do you want to draft up some TODO's and we can see how we can split up the work etc.? Ideally, we can do this as part of the general lucene 4.x upgrade effort.

-John

[David Smiley]

Hi folks.  I'm one of the primary authors of the new Lucene spatial module (and Spatial4j which it uses).  If you run into any issues, have questions, or whatever then please reach out.  The API has slowly been going through some improvements lately so don't be surprised if it changes on you... though I don't see truly big changes soon.

~ David Smiley

[John Wang]

Awesome! Thanks David!

-John

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM, David Smiley <david.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi folks.  I'm one of the primary authors of the new Lucene spatial module (and Spatial4j which it uses).  If you run into any issues, have questions, or whatever then please reach out.  The API has slowly been going through some improvements lately so don't be surprised if it changes on you... though I don't see truly big changes soon.

~ David Smiley

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bobo-browse" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bobo-browse/-/GWDxYhEW2N4J.

[Geoff Cooney]

Thanks David!  Do you by any chance have a link to any documentation or examples for running queries against the Lucene spatial module?  I started glancing through the code but I find it often helps to have a few code examples when exploring new code.

@John - I can probably put together a list of TODOs sometime over the weekend.

-Geoff

[Geoff Cooney]

Migrating bobo-contib to lucene 4.0 TODO:

-Performance test against lucene spatial search (use a square bounding box - small/medium/large dataset, small/medium/large bounding box, geo only/geo+text)

-Investigate merging with/building on lucene spatial (or at least integrating spatial4j)

-Integrate with lucene 4.0 flex indexing (This should remove the need for using a modified IndexWriter and provide cleaner unused segment clean-up)

-Rework geo scorer to work with lucene's new flexible scoring structures (not sure what's involved here)

I'll add these to the TODO under bobo-contrib.  I'll ask Ken to take a look once he's back next week, in case I missed anything.

-Geoff

[david.w...@gmail.com]

FYI I committed example code to show the basics with some helpful comments:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/trunk/lucene/spatial/src/test/org/apache/lucene/spatial/SpatialExample.java

[david.w...@gmail.com]

The best example right now is in the form of tests; this one in particular:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/trunk/lucene/spatial/src/test/org/apache/lucene/spatial/PortedSolr3Test.java

I am working on a simple example source file designed to show off how to use it without being distracted by testing concerns.

~ David

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Geoff Cooney <cooney...@gmail.com> wrote:

[jianwen lou]

Hi,What is difference between Spatial4j and the contrib/spatial of Lucene Official Distribution?

thanks

[david.w...@gmail.com]

Spatial4j is the shape API.  There isn't any indexing.  It has no hard dependencies; there is an optional dependency on JTS if you use Polygons and WKT.

Lucene spatial depends on Spatial4j for shapes.  Lucene spatial obviously has the spatial indexing.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bobo-browse" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bobo-browse/-/jl3-wMkDfKYJ.

[jianwen lou]

Ok.I got it thanks