FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

add LocationIndexTree.query(BBox) by karussell · Pull Request #1485 · graphhopper/graphhopper · GitHub

add LocationIndexTree.query(BBox) - #1485

Merged
michaz merged 18 commits into
masterfrom
loc_index
Apr 17, 2019
Merged

add LocationIndexTree.query(BBox)#1485
michaz merged 18 commits into
masterfrom
loc_index

Conversation

karussell commented Oct 16, 2018
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This PR adds a new query(BBox) method. Currently we can fetch only nodes from one leaf and so with this querying areas is inefficient. Related to #1127 and #1324.

Furthermore a possibility to visualize the index

and some description for the index is added. The description now makes clear that we have a Quadtree implementation with some special tuning. E.g. for bigger areas one node branches not only into 4 subtrees but can branch into 16. Previously also 64 was possible, but we removed this as this has no advantages in terms of storage, query or creation speed. (Measured it for Germany and world wide)

TODOs:

karussell added this to the 0.12 milestone Oct 16, 2018
if (bbox.contains(lat, lon))
indexNodeList.add(nodeId);

// TODO should be done behind the scene?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Will make it possible via a SimpleVisitor class or something. Often this iteration has to be done again on the client side e.g. to fetch the edges and so this work would be an unnecessary overhead then.

karussell modified the milestones: 0.12, 0.13 Feb 25, 2019

michaz commented Apr 11, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Nice, this closes some open ends for me. Is the current state mergeable, meaning, do we think that the bounding-box query does more or less what it should? Because I'd like to.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Well, this is not fully ready unfortunately. Currently all nodes are returned where the tile intersects with the shape. This is ok for visualisation, but for other use cases we have to filter these nodes and call "shape.contains(node)" as a post processing step. Now the problem is that this could be done cheap like this or in a more expensive manner if we need high precision via "shape.intersects(edge.fetchWayGeometry)". Currently exploring the options on how to do this so that this also works for a Polygon (which basically means using JTS Polygon behind our Polygon class). But we could also bring it into a mergable state faster and I'll create a new issue for the open tasks.

michaz commented Apr 12, 2019
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Oh, that's exactly what I need: "May include more nodes than are contained, but never fails to return return a node that is contained". I think that's also how other implementations work.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Oh, that's exactly what I need: "May include more nodes than are contained, but never fails to return return a node that is contained". I think that's also how other implementations work.

Ah, ok. I think there are indeed two use cases. This one, which you need and we need for fast visualization. But also the other to e.g. block certain edges but not too many!

Maybe I'll bring this PR in a mergable form for the first use case and explicitly mention this and work later on the second "high precision" use case?

michaz commented Apr 12, 2019
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Maybe I'll bring this PR in a mergable form for the first use case and explicitly mention this and work later on the second "high precision" use case?

Yes, please! For me, this doesn't even mean that this is currently unfinished -- filtering the result to the desired level of exclusivity is a second task, and can happen outside of the current method. This one is finished.

michaz commented Apr 12, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

And this method can still narrow down what it returns later on without changing its promise.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

filtering the result to the desired level of exclusivity is a second task

This is exactly where I'm unsure because the method index.query(shape) could also imply that this should be an exact filter and no post-processing work needs to be done.

michaz commented Apr 12, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Well, "query" as a method name is vague enough that I think it can't be misunderstood as promising anything specific. ;-)

Let's add a Javadoc which explains what this method does and does not (not how it does that), and it'll be fine.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Ok :D

Will do this ... let me just do some minor stuff.

karussell commented Apr 12, 2019
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I did the following changes (let me know if this was too much):

  • moved the Visitor interfaces and the query method to the LocationIndex interface
  • removed the extra visualize method and made it possible via the Visitor setting isTileInfo (now Visitor has to be an abtract class as default methods are not possible in 7). onTile now directly includes the depth not the too-visualization-specific width.
  • avoid duplicate nodes (and edges for the EdgeVisitor)
  • introduced a new "queryBBox.contains" branch to avoid bbox checks on greater depths, should make the query slightly faster
  • renamed Shape.intersect to intersects, also to make later migrations to JTS easier
  • renamed *cell* to *tile*
  • made some methods non-public

karussell requested a review from michaz April 12, 2019 14:29
/**
* This interface allows to visit every node stored in the leafs of a LocationIndex.
*/
abstract class Visitor {

michaz Apr 14, 2019
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Just as a small remark: This Visitor is not very Java-8-friendly (see my call of the new query method in the commit I added - I can't do a lambda there, because the visitor is not a single-method interface but a multi-method abstract class), and also a bit unusual. If I understand it correctly, as a client, I have to override isTileInfo if I want onTile to be called? I think interfaces are most clear when control flows in one direction only: An interface is either for me to call, or for me to implement and be called.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

An interface is either for me to call, or for me to implement and be called.

Okay, that's actually the case here. :-) But the information flows both ways.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Yes, I tried with a separate QueryOptions class but this was not much prettier. Should I revert it back to this to make it easier with lambda?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Ah no, it's okay.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Thanks! I'm doing more Isochrone experiments with this right now... ,-)

michaz merged commit fa78298 into master Apr 17, 2019
michaz deleted the loc_index branch April 22, 2020 20:31
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants


Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL