From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Matthews <plm(at)netspace(dot)net(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4967: polygon @> point incorrect for points close to shared borders |
Date: | 2009-08-06 23:21:02 |
Message-ID: | 7731.1249600862@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Paul Matthews <plm(at)netspace(dot)net(dot)au> writes:
>> How close is "close"? There's some pretty arbitrary fuzzy-comparisons
>> logic in the geometric datatypes ... see FPeq() and friends. That might
>> be doing it to you.
> I'll try to figure out how "relatively" close tonight, this stuff is
> sub-metre resolution GPS data. The attached picture shows the two
> polygons, the shared border, a road in this case, and the houses that
> think they are on both sides of the road. Houses and other features are
> located with latitude+longitude.<br>
Hmm ... just out of curiosity, why aren't you using PostGIS for this?
Our built-in geometric types are mostly an academic proof-of-concept,
they aren't industrial strength IMHO.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-08-07 04:26:47 | Re: Fwd: [BUGS] fix: plpgsql: return query and dropped columns problem |
Previous Message | Paul Matthews | 2009-08-06 22:28:19 | Re: BUG #4967: polygon @> point incorrect for points close to shared borders |