Subject: [ggl] Point/Box in Box Test (Border Cases - 3D)
From: Barend Gehrels (barend)
Date: 2011-07-10 18:01:47
Hi Frank, List,
On 7-7-2011 12:03, Frank Glinka wrote:
> Amendment to my previous mail:
> It seems the 'within_code' function returns a different result than
> intersects or my custom implementation of coveredBy although I
> wouldn't have expected this.
> Probably even worse: 'within' now has a different behavior compared to
> the previous version (before you moved the within_code code).
> This happens with the micro benchmark and a batch_size of 100000000
> with 10 iterations. Strange - I have no ad hoc idea yet.
This is indeed worrying. Can it be related to floating point precision?
Furthermore, for your information, I've been busy with it. I can
reproduce your benchmarks and I started with a solution. The within_code
will (probably) disappear. Instead, there will be some specific
strategies for implementation of either >= and <= for covered_by, or >
and < for within, such that they can be implemented optimally and
therefore will have the same speed as the original solution.
This has some more influence on the design and I will not finish it this
weekend, but next weekend should be feasable.
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net