[hibernate-dev] Coordinates storage in Lucene index for spatial functionality

Mon May 14 12:29:25 EDT 2012

Hi Nicolas,
thanks for the numbers, very interesting. I have two main questions on this:

# Functionality
Why is the number of documents fetched  via Degrees approximately half
of what you're fetching via Radians?
This seems to be true for both "Grid" and "DoubleRange", while the
numbers (approximately) match when you apply the Distance Filter as
well.
It was my understanding that using either Degrees or Radians in the
index should just be a performance difference, with no difference in
functionality (like result numbers) ?

Applying the Distance Filter seems to fix the result, but this filter
is optional right?

# Performance
The overhead mismatch you point out sheds some suspicion on the
overall test validity as I see no reason either.. how long are you
running these tests? I've had very bad experiences with short
performance tests; I've since learnt do use -XX:+PrintCompilation to
know how long (at the bare minimum) I have to run any test before JIT
has finished compiling all the relevant code.

Cheers,
Sanne

On 11 May 2012 08:40, Nicolas Helleringer <nicolas.helleringer at gmail.com> wrote:
> There, back and again ...
>
> After fixing a bug in grid search here are some updated results on 2k calls
>
> Degrees :
> Mean time with Grid : 4.4897266425641025 ms. Average number of docs  fetched
> : 2506.96
> Mean time with Grid + Distance filter : 6.4930799487179485 ms. Average
> number of docs  fetched : 425.33435897435896
> Mean time with DoubleRange : 14.430638703076923 ms. Average number of docs
>  fetched : 542.0410256410256
> Mean time with DoubleRange + Distance filter : 20.483300545128206 ms.
> Average number of docs  fetched : 425.33435897435896
>
> Radians :
> Mean time with Grid : 5.650845744102564 ms. Average number of docs  fetched
> : 5074.830769230769
> Mean time with Grid + Distance filter : 8.627138825128204 ms. Average number
> of docs  fetched : 426.7902564102564
> Mean time with DoubleRange : 15.337755502564102 ms. Average number of docs
>  fetched : 1087.705641025641
> Mean time with DoubleRange + Distance filter : 20.82852138769231 ms. Average
> number of docs  fetched : 426.7902564102564
>
> Next thing I do not explain yet is the distance filter overhead mismatch :
> It is less on grid search with more docs to test than on DoubleRange.
>
> Niko
>
>
> 2012/5/7 Nicolas Helleringer <nicolas.helleringer at gmail.com>
>>
>> Here are some results :
>>
>> Mean time with Grid : 4.9297471630769225 ms. Average number of docs
>>  fetched : 2416.373846153846
>> Mean time with Grid + Distance filter : 6.48634534 ms. Average number of
>> docs  fetched : 425.84
>> Mean time with DoubleRange : 15.39593650051282 ms. Average number of docs
>>  fetched : 542.72
>> Mean time with DoubleRange + Distance filter : 21.158394677435897 ms.
>> Average number of docs  fetched : 425.8779487179487
>>
>> Sounds weird that with distance filter the two results are note the same.
>> I shall investigate that.
>>
>> Niko
>>
>> 2012/5/7 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>
>>>
>>> Do you know the average amount of POI that were filtered in memory but
>>> the DistanceFilter during these runs?
>>>
>>> Emmanuel
>>>
>>> On 7 mai 2012, at 10:31, Nicolas Helleringer wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have done a radian patch/branch and some benchmarks on geonames french
>>> database.
>>>
>>> Benchs are on 2k calls each run.
>>>
>>> Radians:
>>> run 1
>>> Mean time with Grid : 4.808043092820513 ms
>>> Mean time with Grid + Distance filter : 6.571108878461538 ms
>>> Mean time with DoubleRange : 14.62661525128205 ms
>>> Mean time with DoubleRange + Distance filter : 20.143597923076925 ms
>>>
>>> run 2
>>> Mean time with Grid : 5.290368523076923 ms
>>> Mean time with Grid + Distance filter : 6.706567517435897 ms
>>> Mean time with DoubleRange : 14.878960702564102 ms
>>> Mean time with DoubleRange + Distance filter : 20.75806591948718 ms
>>>
>>> Degrees:
>>> run 1
>>> Mean time with Grid : 5.101956610769231 ms
>>> Mean time with Grid + Distance filter : 6.548685109230769 ms
>>> Mean time with DoubleRange : 14.767478146153845 ms
>>> Mean time with DoubleRange + Distance filter : 20.668063972820512 ms
>>>
>>> run 2
>>> Mean time with Grid : 4.683360031282051 ms
>>> Mean time with Grid + Distance filter : 6.7065247435897435 ms
>>> Mean time with DoubleRange : 14.617140157948716 ms
>>> Mean time with DoubleRange + Distance filter : 20.074868595897435 ms
>>>
>>> The radian branch is here for review
>>> : https://github.com/nicolashelleringer/hibernate-search/tree/HSEARCH-923-RADIANS
>>>
>>> While moving from degrees to radians I have seen that DSL has still some
>>> work to do.
>>> I shall focus on that now.
>>>
>>> Niko
>>>
>>> 2012/5/3 Sanne Grinovero <sanne at hibernate.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2012 10:10 AM, "Emmanuel Bernard" <emmanuel at hibernate.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > How comes the DistanceFilter has to compute the distance for the whole
>>>> > corpus?
>>>>
>>>> You're right in that's not always the case, but it's possible. If there
>>>> are more filters enabled and they are executed first, our filter will need
>>>> to do the math only on the matched documents by the previous filters, but if
>>>> there are no other constraints or filters our DistanceFilter might need to
>>>> process all documents in all segments. This happens also when a limit is
>>>> enabled on the collector - although limited to the current index segment -
>>>> when the filter needs to be cached as it needs to evaluate each document in
>>>> the segment.
>>>>
>>>> In our case this DistanceFilter is only applied after RangeQuery was
>>>> applied on both longitude and latitude, so I'm not sure if this is a big
>>>> problem; personally I was just wondering but I'd be fine in keeping this as
>>>> a possible future improvement - but if we go for a separate issue, let's
>>>> keep in mind that that the index format would not be backwards compatible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > By the way the actual storage (say via Hibernate ORM, or Infinispan)
>>>> > does not need to store in radian, so we don't need to do a conversion when
>>>> > reading an entity.
>>>>
>>>> Right, another reason to index only in whatever format makes querying
>>>> more efficient.
>>>>
>>>> -- Sanne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On 3 mai 2012, at 10:45, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > The reason for my comment is that the code is doing a conversion to
>>>> > > radians in the DistanceFilter, which needs to be extremely efficient
>>>> > > as it's not only applied on the resultset but potentially on the
>>>> > > whole
>>>> > > corpus of all Documents in the index.
>>>> > > So even if it's true that conversion would be needed on the final
>>>> > > results, we always expect people to retrieve only a limited amount
>>>> > > of
>>>> > > entities (like with pagination), while the index might need to
>>>> > > perform
>>>> > > this computation millions of times per query.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > If I look at the complexity of Point.getDistanceTo(double, double),
>>>> > > I
>>>> > > get a feeling that that method will hardly provide speedy queries
>>>> > > because of the complex computations in it - this is just speculation
>>>> > > at this point of course, to be sure we'd need to compare them with a
>>>> > > large enough dataset, but it seems quite obvious that storing
>>>> > > normalized radians should be more efficient as it would avoid a good
>>>> > > deal of math to be executed on each Document in the index.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Also if we assume people might want to use radians in their user
>>>> > > data
>>>> > > (I know some who definitely would never touch decimals for such a
>>>> > > use
>>>> > > case), there would be no need at all to convert the end result.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Some more thoughts inline:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On 3 May 2012 09:12, Nicolas Helleringer
>>>> > > <nicolas.helleringer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Sanne and I have been wondering about the way the spatial
>>>> > >> branch/module/functionality for Hibernate Search shall store its
>>>> > >> coordinates in the Lucene index.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Today it is implemented with decimal degree for :
>>>> > >> - easy debugging/readability
>>>> > >> - ease of conversion on storage as we want to accept mainly decimal
>>>> > >> degree
>>>> > >> from users data
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Valid points, but consider that "storage" is going to be way slower
>>>> > > anyway, and typically you'll process a Document to evaluate it for a
>>>> > > hit many many orders of magnitude more frequently than the times you
>>>> > > store it.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Sanne pointed out that when the search is done there is quite a few
>>>> > >> conversion to radians for distance calculation and suggested that
>>>> > >> we may
>>>> > >> store directly coordinates under their radians form.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I have tried a patch to implement this and as I was coding it I
>>>> > >> feel that
>>>> > >> the code was less readable, in the coordinates normalisation mainly
>>>> > >> and
>>>> > >> that there was as many conversion as before.
>>>> > >> Conversions had moved from search to import / export of coordinates
>>>> > >> in and
>>>> > >> out the spatial module scope to user scope.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I'm sure the amount of points in the code in which they are
>>>> > > converted
>>>> > > won't change. I'm concerned about the cardinality of the collections
>>>> > > on which it's applied ;)
>>>> > > "Less readable" isn't nice, but we can work on that I guess?
>>>> > >
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> What the docs does not tell (yet), is that we are waiting for WGS
>>>> > >> 84 (this
>>>> > >> is a coordinate system) decimal degree coordinates input, as these
>>>> > >> are
>>>> > >> quite a de facto standard (GPS output this way).
>>>> > >
>>>> > > How does it affect this?
>>>> > >
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Today this is not the purpose of Hibernate Search spatial
>>>> > >> initiative to
>>>> > >> handle projections. There are opensource libs to handle that on
>>>> > >> user side
>>>> > >> very well (Proj4j)
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> So. The question is : shall we store as radians or decimal degree ?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Niko
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> P.S : Hope it is clear. If not ask for more.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thanks!
>>>> > > Sanne
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > hibernate-dev mailing list
>>>> > > hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>