[postgis-users] speeding up simple pt-in-poly lookups
Martin Davis
mtnclimb at telus.net
Thu Dec 22 21:06:06 PST 2011
You may well be right that for this particular case of testing
polygon/point intersection it's efficient to use a distance function,
since that uses the simple stabbing line point-in-polygon algorithm
(whereas ST_Intersects has much more complicated code behind it, which
may not be fully optimized).
It is probably better to use ST_DWithin(geom1, geom2, 0) rather than
ST_Distance(geom1, geom2) = 0, since ST_DWithin can optimize the case
where points lie outside the query polygon. When checking intersection,
the actual distance is irrelevant (and is expensive to compute when the
point lies outside the polygon.
And note that using distance functions stops being efficient when
testing things that aren't points (such as linestrings or polygons),
since this uses a brute-force O(n^2) algorithm.
On 12/21/2011 9:38 AM, pcreso at pcreso.com wrote:
> Puneet,
>
> Chopping polygons is pretty simple, with a grid & st_intersection(),
> but you can certainly generalise polygons to reduce the number of
> vertices & size of objects to de-toast... beware however that if you
> do this then you are actually moving the polygon boundary, & therefore
> a point very near a boundary may be inside the original country
> polygon but outside the generalised/simplified one.
>
> You can address this by simplifying a buffer of the polygons, with the
> buffer very slightly larger than the simplify distance, so that every
> simplified version fully contains the original, but you will also have
> to check against the original polygons to confirm the point is
> genuinely inside the original.
>
> As an alternative approach, you might also try selecting points where
> the distance from a polygon is zero, as the ST_distance uses stabbing
> line algorithm, and may be faster. The distance will be non-zero only
> for points outside the polygon.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brent Wood
>
> On 21/12/2011, at 12:06 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:48 PM, Martin Davis wrote:
> >
> >> For more detail check out this thread on the same issue:
> >>
> >>
> http://postgis.refractions.net/pipermail/postgis-users/2011-November/031345.html
> >
> >
> > Thanks. Chopping up my coverage into hundreds of small regions
> is the last avenue I want to try. Going by the text of that email,
> it seems that "few, large, regions with many vertices (may be) the
> problem." I will try generalizing my continents so that I have
> "few, large regions with *very few* vertices" and see if that
> speeds up the SELECTs.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On 12/20/2011 5:28 PM, Puneet Kishor wrote:
> >>> On Dec 20, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Chop up the continents into smaller pieces.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> hmmm... I am not sure I understand the above. And then what?
> UNION each smaller piece query?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Puneet
> Kishor<punk.kish at gmail.com </mc/compose?to=punk.kish at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>>>> This is probably a really basic question... my ST_Within or
> ST_Intersects selecting points in a continent are way too slow
> (both take upward of 200 secs).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SELECT Count(c_id)
> >>>>> FROM c, continents n
> >>>>> WHERE ST_Intersects(c.the_geom, n.the_geom) AND
> >>>>> n.continent = 'North America';
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both tables have gist indexes on the geometries. The above
> query has the following plan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Aggregate (cost=9.66..9.67 rows=1 width=4)"
> >>>>> " -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..9.66 rows=1 width=4)"
> >>>>> " Join Filter: _st_intersects(c.the_geom, n.the_geom)"
> >>>>> " -> Seq Scan on continents n (cost=0.00..1.10
> rows=1 width=32)"
> >>>>> " Filter: ((continent)::text = 'North
> America'::text)"
> >>>>> " -> Index Scan using pbdb__collections_the_geom on
> collections c (cost=0.00..8.30 rows=1 width=104)"
> >>>>> " Index Cond: (c.the_geom&& n.the_geom)"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The table c has approx 120K rows, and the continents table
> has 8 rows.Suggestions on how I can improve this? Yes, the
> computer is otherwise very swift and modern.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Puneet Kishor
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> postgis-users mailing list
> >>> postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> </mc/compose?to=postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net>
> >>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----
> >>> No virus found in this message.
> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2109/4692 - Release
> Date: 12/20/11
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> postgis-users mailing list
> >> postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> </mc/compose?to=postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net>
> >> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-users mailing list
> > postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> </mc/compose?to=postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net>
> > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> </mc/compose?to=postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net>
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2109/4694 - Release Date: 12/21/11
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/attachments/20111222/35f1f513/attachment.html>
More information about the postgis-users
mailing list