Re: [HACKERS] Hmm ... shouldn't path_distance be MIN distance not MAX distance?

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hmm ... shouldn't path_distance be MIN distance not MAX distance?
Date: 2000-07-31 05:26:50
Message-ID: 39850E1A.B42F8E9E@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> I just noticed that path_distance() in geo_ops.c (the "<->" operator
> for path datatype) claims to be computing the minimum distance between
> any two line segments of the two paths, but actually it's computing the
> maximum such distance.
> Isn't this broken?

Sure sounds like it :(

- Thomas

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Elphick 2000-07-31 05:40:08 Re: Inheritance
Previous Message Philip Warner 2000-07-31 03:20:15 Re: pg_dump & performance degradation

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-07-31 06:09:25 Re: gram.y now producing warnings?
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-07-31 05:26:01 Re: pre-6.1-to-6.1 conversion procs slated for destruction