<html>
<head>
<title></title>
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16850" name="GENERATOR"></meta>
</head>
<body>Maybe this is what you mean with "multi-dimensional indexing" in geodetic-plan.txt ?
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">/Nicklas<br />
<br />
2009-06-19 nicklas.aven@jordogskog.no wrote:<br />
<br />
Hallo ></div>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left">I have a thought about indexing. Idon't know much about them but I have read some headings from the diskussions about deviding features to get more out of the geometries.</div>>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left">I guess the issues about comparing big to small will be more common when handling "the whole world".</div>>
<div align="left">Wouldn't it be possible to just devide the index. </div>>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left">The bounding-boxes would be just like the divided features bboxes but just be indexes.</div>>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left">I think one example to discuss this from is a query asking for all towns close to the atlantic oscean. With a boundingbox to the atlantic the index will give us most of the towns in the world. </div>>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left">The idea is to build the index like, lets say, for example one bounding box to the representation of the atlantic in each long/lat degree.</div>>
<div align="left">Then the index could fist scan all towns sharing "lat/long-degree boxes" with the atlantic from some static ID of the boxes, then select from them using the smaller boundingboxes to the atlantic. </div>>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left">Or maybe it would be better to divide the indexes in relation to the size of the object. I don't know</div>>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left">I say like Regina:</div>>
<div align="left">Crazy thought so feel free to knock it down.<br />
></div>>
<div align="left">or maybe it's alreagy out there.<br />
></div>>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left">/Nicklas</div>>
<div align="left"> </div>>
<div align="left"><br />
> 2009-06-18 Paul Ramsey wrote:<br />
><br />
> Folks,<br />
> ><br />
> >I may be getting a contract to bring in geodetic support in the next<br />
> >little while. The challenge is to bring in this potentially big piece<br />
> >of new functionality, and have it into a released version in around 9<br />
> >months. I have been thinking about different ways to approach the<br />
> >implementation and placed some thoughts here.<br />
> ><br />
> >files.getdropbox.com/u/1184727/geodetic-plan.txt<br />
> ><br />
> >I'm interested to hear your thoughts about what the most useful<br />
> >approach would be. The client wants to see this work in the core<br />
> >distribution, and OpenGeo has an interest in the longer term vision of<br />
> >PostGIS, so the most expedient approach is not necessarily required,<br />
> >we can choose something that balances our long-term vision with the<br />
> >short-term need to have working code in a numbered release.<br />
> ><br />
> >Yours,<br />
> ><br />
> >Paul<br />
> >_______________________________________________<br />
> >postgis-devel mailing list<br />
> >postgis-devel@postgis.refractions.net<br />
> >postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel<br />
> ><br />
> ></div>
</body>
</html>