line datatype
Probably the most succinct explanation would be to copy & paste from the
terminal...
tjhart=> create table a_line( foo line );
CREATE
tjhart=> insert into a_line ( foo ) values( '(0,0), (1,1)' );
ERROR: line not yet implemented
tjhart=> select version();
version
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.2.1 on powerpc-apple-darwin5.3, compiled by GCC 2.95.2
(1 row)
The documentation (datatype-geometric.html) indicates both a 'line' type
and an 'lseg' type in the summary table at the top of the page. The same
code above using the type 'lseg' in place of 'line' works just fine.
Why can I create a table with a column of type 'line' if I can't insert
into it?
Tim Hart wrote:
Probably the most succinct explanation would be to copy & paste from the
terminal...tjhart=> create table a_line( foo line );
CREATE
tjhart=> insert into a_line ( foo ) values( '(0,0), (1,1)' );
ERROR: line not yet implemented
tjhart=> select version();
version
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.2.1 on powerpc-apple-darwin5.3, compiled by GCC 2.95.2
(1 row)The documentation (datatype-geometric.html) indicates both a 'line' type
and an 'lseg' type in the summary table at the top of the page. The same
code above using the type 'lseg' in place of 'line' works just fine.Why can I create a table with a column of type 'line' if I can't insert
into it?
Well, that's a very good question. I see you have to compile PostgreSQL
with ENABLE_LINE_TYPE defined in pg_config.h.in and rerun configure.
I see this commit from August 16, 1998:
revision 1.35
date: 1998/08/16 04:06:55; author: thomas; state: Exp; lines: +7 -6
Disable not-ready-to-use support code for the line data type.
Bracket things with #ifdef ENABLE_LINE_TYPE.
The line data type has always been used internally to support other
types, but I/O routines have never been defined for it.
psql \dT clearly shows line and lseg:
line | geometric line '(pt1,pt2)'
lseg | geometric line segment '(pt1,pt2)'
so I think we have both a documentation problem, psql problem, and code
problem. Let's see what Thomas says.
For the short term, I would use lseg because it looks the same.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026OK, I have added comments to \dT and SGML docs to mention that 'line' is
not implemented. This should help future folks.
It would be nice to get the line type working 100%. Thomas says the
problem is input/output format. I don't completely understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hart wrote:
Probably the most succinct explanation would be to copy & paste from the
terminal...tjhart=> create table a_line( foo line );
CREATE
tjhart=> insert into a_line ( foo ) values( '(0,0), (1,1)' );
ERROR: line not yet implemented
tjhart=> select version();
version
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.2.1 on powerpc-apple-darwin5.3, compiled by GCC 2.95.2
(1 row)The documentation (datatype-geometric.html) indicates both a 'line' type
and an 'lseg' type in the summary table at the top of the page. The same
code above using the type 'lseg' in place of 'line' works just fine.Why can I create a table with a column of type 'line' if I can't insert
into it?---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
It would be nice to get the line type working 100%. Thomas says the
problem is input/output format. I don't completely understand.
The issue is in choosing an external format for LINE which does not lose
precision during dump/reload. Internally, LINE is described by a formula
which is likely subject to problems with limited precision for some line
orientations.
Does anyone have a suggestion (perhaps drawn from another GIS package)
for representing lines? We already have this implemented internally, and
the algorithms are used to support other data types; the only unresolved
issue is in how to input the values.
- Thomas
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
The issue is in choosing an external format for LINE which does not lose
precision during dump/reload.
Why is this any worse for LINE than for any of the other geometric
types (or for plain floats, for that matter)?
We do need a solution for exact dump/reload of floating-point data,
but I don't see why the lack of it should be reason to disable access
to the LINE type.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
The issue is in choosing an external format for LINE which does not lose
precision during dump/reload.Why is this any worse for LINE than for any of the other geometric
types (or for plain floats, for that matter)?We do need a solution for exact dump/reload of floating-point data,
but I don't see why the lack of it should be reason to disable access
to the LINE type.
I don't understand why dumping the two point values isn't sufficient.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026...
We do need a solution for exact dump/reload of floating-point data,
but I don't see why the lack of it should be reason to disable access
to the LINE type.I don't understand why dumping the two point values isn't sufficient.
Which two point values? LINE is handled as an equation, not as points,
unlike the LSEG type which has two points.
One possibility is to have the external representation *be* the same as
LSEG, then convert internally. Then we need to decide how to scale those
points; maybe always using a unit vector is the right thing to do...
- Thomas
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
...
We do need a solution for exact dump/reload of floating-point data,
but I don't see why the lack of it should be reason to disable access
to the LINE type.I don't understand why dumping the two point values isn't sufficient.
Which two point values? LINE is handled as an equation, not as points,
unlike the LSEG type which has two points.
Well, the \dT documentation used to show line as two points, so I
assumed that was how it was specified.
One possibility is to have the external representation *be* the same as
LSEG, then convert internally. Then we need to decide how to scale those
points; maybe always using a unit vector is the right thing to do...
No one likes entering an equation. Two points seems the simplest.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026Actually... as one with the vested interest...
I'm not opposed to entering an equation in one of the basic algebraic forms. Given that line types and line segment types both exist, I'm happy to weigh the cost/benefit between choosing an lseg and entering 2 points, or choosing a line and entering the equation.
Are there database functions to translate between a line and a line seg? If so, that would address my only reservation for restricting the line type to an equation. And - to address Tom's continuing concern over casting ;), I have no need for implicit casts in this case.
If there are concerns about precision being lost in the translation - As long as what precision can be guaranteed is documented, I have no qualms. If I needed absolute precision I'd create my own line table with numerics, and write my own functions as necessary. The line type to me is there for speed and ease of use, not unlimited precision.
On Tuesday, 16, 2002, at 09:38AM, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
Show quoted text
No one likes entering an equation. Two points seems the simplest.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
...
Well, the \dT documentation used to show line as two points, so I
assumed that was how it was specified.
Hmm. And it seems I entered it a few years ago ;)
Cut and paste error. At that time the line type was defined but has
never had the i/o routines enabled.
No one likes entering an equation. Two points seems the simplest.
That it does.
- Thomas
On Tuesday 16 July 2002 11:29 am, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
We do need a solution for exact dump/reload of floating-point data,
but I don't see why the lack of it should be reason to disable access
to the LINE type.
I don't understand why dumping the two point values isn't sufficient.
Which two point values? LINE is handled as an equation, not as points,
unlike the LSEG type which has two points.
One possibility is to have the external representation *be* the same as
LSEG, then convert internally. Then we need to decide how to scale those
points; maybe always using a unit vector is the right thing to do...
Lines are entered now by specifying two points, anywhere on the line, right?
The internal representation is then slope-intercept? Why not allow either
the 'two-point' entry, or direct entry as slope-intercept? How do we
represent lines now in output? Do we pick two arbitrary points on the line?
If so, I can see Thomas' point here, where the original data entry might have
specified two relatively distant points -- but then there's a precision error
anyway converting to slope-intercept, if indeed that is the internal
representation. So why not dump in slope-intercept form, if that is the
internal representation?
But, you're telling me floats aren't dumpable/restoreable to exactly the same
value? (????) This can't be good.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday 16 July 2002 11:29 am, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
We do need a solution for exact dump/reload of floating-point data,
but I don't see why the lack of it should be reason to disable access
to the LINE type.I don't understand why dumping the two point values isn't sufficient.
Which two point values? LINE is handled as an equation, not as points,
unlike the LSEG type which has two points.One possibility is to have the external representation *be* the same as
LSEG, then convert internally. Then we need to decide how to scale those
points; maybe always using a unit vector is the right thing to do...Lines are entered now by specifying two points, anywhere on the line, right?
The internal representation is then slope-intercept? Why not allow either
the 'two-point' entry, or direct entry as slope-intercept? How do we
represent lines now in output? Do we pick two arbitrary points on the line?
If so, I can see Thomas' point here, where the original data entry might have
specified two relatively distant points -- but then there's a precision error
anyway converting to slope-intercept, if indeed that is the internal
representation. So why not dump in slope-intercept form, if that is the
internal representation?
Yow, I can see the pain of having slope/intercept and trying to output
two points. What if we store line internally as two points, and convert
to slope/intercept when needed. That way, it would dump out just as it
was entered.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
No one likes entering an equation. Two points seems the simplest.
That it does.
On the other hand, if you want to enter two points why don't you just
use lseg to begin with? There's not much justification for having a
separate line type unless it behaves differently ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
No one likes entering an equation. Two points seems the simplest.
That it does.
On the other hand, if you want to enter two points why don't you just
use lseg to begin with? There's not much justification for having a
separate line type unless it behaves differently ...
I assume the line type keeps going after the two end points, while lseg
doesn't.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026No one likes entering an equation. Two points seems the simplest.
That it does.
On the other hand, if you want to enter two points why don't you just
use lseg to begin with? There's not much justification for having a
separate line type unless it behaves differently ...
They are different. One is infinite in length, the other is finite.
Distances, etc are calculated differently between the two types.
- Thomas
On Tuesday 16 July 2002 04:42 pm, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
On the other hand, if you want to enter two points why don't you just
use lseg to begin with? There's not much justification for having a
separate line type unless it behaves differently ...
They are different. One is infinite in length, the other is finite.
Distances, etc are calculated differently between the two types.
For some of my work a type of 'ray' would be nice... :-) But LSEG's usually
work OK as long as you specify an endpoint that is far enough away.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11