[postgis-users] [postgis-devel] Is there a reason we don't have an ST_Intersection aggregate function

[Rémi Cura]

Hey,
I think you misunderstood me,
of course array of geom are not a replacement of proper use of aggregate.
It's just that in some case you cannot do with aggregate and array function
are very usefull, or the only solution.
(example :
WITH A AS (

)

for instance when


2014-09-01 14:39 GMT+02:00 Paragon Corporation <lr at pcorp.us>:

>
>
>
>  >  What I target is not the unioning between the layers but inside the
> same layer. The problem is the same -> to do something with more than two
> geometries involved.
>
>
>  >  Adding aggregates is really less a priority than adding support for
> >
> ARRAY[geom1,geom2,geom3...] for the relevant functions.
> >
> > Are you sure that the planner and indexes will manage arrays better?
>
> The reason I was thinking an array of aggregates is not as useful as an
> ST_Intersection aggregate is that as you intersect geometries you are using
> less memory rather than more
> with array you'd have to accumulate them first.
>
> It really is a sequential thing.
>
> That is not to say the ARRAY version isn't useful, but if you have a bunch
> of geometries and then have to array them to get an intersection, then it
> would be slower.
> I could be wrong on that of course. Paul and Nicklas can correct me on
> that since they are more familiar with the innards.
>
> I have on occasion come into the situation where the things I want to get
> intersection of are in separate rows rather than separate layers and it is
> a tad bit annoying to work around it. Doesn't come up often though.
>
> Now with 9.4 coming with the FILTER syntax now makes the across rows much
> easier if I actually had an ST_Intersection aggregate that could take
> advantage of it.
>
>   >  Yes, I guess you are right that it would be possible to write a
> function that does the job from a collection
>
>  >  But the function will have to do the same thing. To calculate a
> result from 2 polygons, then use the resulting polygon for calculation
> against the third polygon and so on. Just like an aggregate function works.
>
> I actually hadn't thought of our ST_UnaryUnion
> http://postgis.net/docs/manual-2.1/ST_UnaryUnion.html  equivalent of
> ST_Intersection  which is what I think Nicklas is talking about here.  That
> would be useful as well.
> That introduces another question though?
>
> Would an ST_Intersection aggregate double as an ST_UnaryIntersection?
> or we just keep them separate.
>
> I would say keep them separate so that we have a parallel with
> ST_UnaryUnion and also you can use it NOT as an aggregate to satisfy the
> array like need.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Regina
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/attachments/20140901/9d22d7ee/attachment.html>