We ran tests comparing performance of Indexed-Shape Queries to custom
Geoshape Queries. We found that Elasticsearch yielded roughly same results
in both cases. We expected Indexed Shape queries to be faster than custom
Geoshape queries. Our understanding is that Elasticsearch has to convert
the custom geoshapes to quadtree on the fly as opposed to having it
pre-generated. I was wondering if anyone could let us know why there is no
difference in performance between these two query types.
Experiment Design
We indexed suburb boundary geometries into one doctype, and geocoded points
of interest (POIs) into another. We picked top 20 suburbs with geometries
that have most vertices, and ran two following queries for each suburb
geometry.
the main difference is basically the network overhead. What happens behind
the curtains is that a GET request for the shape is being executed if you
specify it in the request and then this shape is used instead of the
provided one.
We ran tests comparing performance of Indexed-Shape Queries to custom
Geoshape Queries. We found that Elasticsearch yielded roughly same results
in both cases. We expected Indexed Shape queries to be faster than custom
Geoshape queries. Our understanding is that Elasticsearch has to convert
the custom geoshapes to quadtree on the fly as opposed to having it
pre-generated. I was wondering if anyone could let us know why there is
no difference in performance between these two query types.
Experiment Design
We indexed suburb boundary geometries into one doctype, and geocoded
points of interest (POIs) into another. We picked top 20 suburbs with
geometries that have most vertices, and ran two following queries for each
suburb geometry.
Does this mean that the shape that I query by does not need to be indexed
by Elasticsearch on the fly? Or does this mean that the indexing of the
shape is so quick it does not affect the query latency?
Thank you,
Ilya.
On 21 April 2014 22:46, Alexander Reelsen alr@spinscale.de wrote:
Hey,
the main difference is basically the network overhead. What happens behind
the curtains is that a GET request for the shape is being executed if you
specify it in the request and then this shape is used instead of the
provided one.
We ran tests comparing performance of Indexed-Shape Queries to custom
Geoshape Queries. We found that Elasticsearch yielded roughly same results
in both cases. We expected Indexed Shape queries to be faster than custom
Geoshape queries. Our understanding is that Elasticsearch has to convert
the custom geoshapes to quadtree on the fly as opposed to having it
pre-generated. I was wondering if anyone could let us know why there is
no difference in performance between these two query types.
Experiment Design
We indexed suburb boundary geometries into one doctype, and geocoded
points of interest (POIs) into another. We picked top 20 suburbs with
geometries that have most vertices, and ran two following queries for each
suburb geometry.
If anyone could shed some light on why the results of these queries are
the same that would be very helpful.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Apache, Apache Lucene, Apache Hadoop, Hadoop, HDFS and the yellow elephant
logo are trademarks of the
Apache Software Foundation
in the United States and/or other countries.