Alternate polygonToCells algorithm by nrabinowitz · Pull Request #785 · uber/h3

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-03T23:44:52Z

This PR implements an alternate algorithm for polygonToCells, which provides polygonToCompactCells as a byproduct.

Goals

Offer a stream/iterator-based algorithm to avoid memory issues when converting polygons to resolutions with high-cardinality output (polygonToCells fails for some simple large polygons #521, JVM crash on large polyfills h3-java#21)
Provide compact output without a separate compactCells step
Improve performance of polygonToCells
Add new polyfill modes for contains and intersects (Add additional modes for polygonToCells #775, Support different polyfill mode #275, H3 Polyfill skipping areas near the boundary h3-java#41)

Algorithm Overview

let cell = base cell 0
while cell:
  res = getResolution(cell)
  if res == target res:
     if cell is in polygon:
        set output to cell and return
  if res < target res:
     let bbox = boundingBox(cell) // where bbox is padded to contain all descendants
     if bbox intersects polygon:
        if bbox is contained by polygon:
          set output to cell and return
        cell = first child of cell
        continue
  cell = next cell // where "next" is the next sibling, or next sibling of parent, etc
when cell is null we're done

Results

This PR includes an iterator-based algo with full test parity to the current algorithm. In its iterator form, it takes very little memory and that memory does not scale with the size of the output - so we can stream cells out of a very large polyfill process without worrying about memory issues.
The new algo gives compact (or nearly compact) output by default, so we get polygonToCellsCompact effectively for free.
The performance isn't exactly better or worse than the current algorithm - it just has different characteristics. In benchmarks, it's faster than the current algorithm for large numbers of cells (because we can use a small number of compact parent cells) but slower for large numbers of polygon vertices (because the containment check scales with the number of vertices). See benchmarks below.
The new polyfill modes are not included in this PR, but should be simple to add based on the work done here (particularly cellBoundaryInsidePolygon and cellBoundaryCrossesGeoLoop).

For Discussion

Are the benefits sufficient to replace the existing polygonToCells algo, even if performance degrades in some cases?
In order to get the memory benefits, consumers need to use the iterator directly, or we need to implement some sort of batch mode that can fill chunks of memory provided by the caller (might be worthwhile to avoid costs in bindings associated with an FFI per output cell). Which option is better? What if any clean up do we need in the iterator interface if we want to make it part of the public API? Should we make the cellToChildren iterator public as well?

Benchmarks

In the following benchmakrks, SF is a 6-vertex polygon covering San Francisco, Alameda is a 49-vertex polygon covering a similar area, and SouthernExpansion is a 22-vertex polygon covering an area 2x-3x larger than SF.

The old polygonToCells performs better when the ratio of output cells to vertexes is low (few cells, complex polygons)
The new polygonToCells2 performs better when the ratio of output cells to vertexes is high (many cells, simple polygons)
Weirdly, the polygonToCellsCompact function, which is just polygonToCells2 without the uncompact step, performs about the same as polygonToCells2 🤔. I went over this several times, but it seems like the benchmark is correct?

Res 9

Built target benchmarkPolygon
	-- polygonToCellsSF: 2264.810000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSF2: 3530.106000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSFCompact: 3530.478000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlameda: 3182.120000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlameda2: 5960.740000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlamedaCompact: 6027.128000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansion: 103521.500000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansion2: 112462.900000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansionCompact: 104374.600000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)

Res 10

Built target benchmarkPolygon
	-- polygonToCellsSF: 12268.826000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSF2: 11435.998000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSFCompact: 11363.694000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlameda: 15037.306000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlameda2: 25583.798000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlamedaCompact: 25478.888000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansion: 693673.900000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansion2: 672981.900000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansionCompact: 659994.200000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)

Res 11

Built target benchmarkPolygon
	-- polygonToCellsSF: 81978.584000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSF2: 50297.930000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSFCompact: 50223.350000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlameda: 96910.940000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlameda2: 140856.702000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAlamedaCompact: 140873.162000 microseconds per iteration (500 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansion: 5245777.500000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansion2: 4613408.400000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsSouthernExpansionCompact: 4607957.500000 microseconds per iteration (10 iterations)

src/h3lib/include/polyfill.h

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-06T00:56:37Z

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

+    // If we make it out of the loop, we're done
+    iterDestroyPolygonCompact(iter);


I am not sure what I think of the iterator usually being destroyed for you. On one hand it is convenient, on the other hand the caller will always need to be able to destroy the iterator themselves (e.g. if we exceed their memory or time budget). I guess that only happens if canceling the iteration, so that's how the caller should think of it?

That seems like a reasonable way to think about it. Perhaps instead of calling it a destroyIterator or etc, it's cancelIterator?

🤷 I like destroy, as it clearly indicates "release memory" - we use it for destroyLinkedMultiPolygon as well. I went back and forth about doing this for the caller, but prefer this option:

In general, the component allocating memory should be responsible for releasing it, and in this case that's the iterator functions

This is more ergonomic for the most common use cases, and ensures proper release in those cases, reducing the potential for bugs

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-06T00:59:50Z

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

+    iterDestroyPolygonCompact(&(iter->_cellIter));
+    iter->cell = H3_NULL;
+    iter->error = E_SUCCESS;
+}


also zero out the child iterator?

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-06T01:00:19Z

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

+    for (; iter.cell; iterStepPolygon(&iter)) {
+        out[i++] = iter.cell;
+    }


you could also assert we don't go over the estimation size here (which would be an out of bounds write)

I don't think we'd want this in production code, since we assume the caller has sized the memory correctly, but the *out array could be any size, so our assertion would only be useful as an internal check that we were meeting our contract. But I think can use the assertion macros to check this in tests.

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-06T01:01:18Z

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

+            // Check if the cell is in the polygon
+            // TODO: Handle other polyfill modes here
+            LatLng center;
+            H3_EXPORT(cellToLatLng)(cell, &center);


this should have a NEVER check for the error

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-06T01:04:52Z

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

+    err = H3_EXPORT(latLngToCell)(&NORTH_POLE, H3_GET_RESOLUTION(cell),
+                                  &poleTest);
+    if (NEVER(err != E_SUCCESS)) {
+        return err;
+    }


It looks like Clang warnings want these stores to be to different variables https://github.com/uber/h3/actions/runs/6408852991/job/17398764952?pr=785 rather than a reused err variable. Not 100% sure I agree (since this is really complaining about something that only affects the coverage build) although I think it is marginally clearer than reusing err.

Ok, will update - I thought I was being clever by declaring this at the top of each function that could throw, but clearly not.

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-06T01:11:17Z

src/h3lib/lib/polygon.c

+    test = ((b2->lat - b1->lat) * (a1->lng - b1->lng) -
+            (b2->lng - b1->lng) * (a1->lat - b1->lat)) /
+           ((b2->lng - b1->lng) * (a2->lat - a1->lat) -
+            (b2->lat - b1->lat) * (a2->lng - a1->lng));


In CI, testPolygonInternal hits an unguarded division by zero on this line:

TEST polygonInternal /Users/isaac/oss/h3/src/h3lib/lib/polygon.c:175:56: runtime error: division by zero SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior /Users/isaac/oss/h3/src/h3lib/lib/polygon.c:175:56 in ......................................................................................zsh: abort ./bin/testPolygonInternal

(to configure: cmake -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS="-fsanitize=undefined,float-divide-by-zero -fno-sanitize-recover=undefined,float-divide-by-zero" .. - must be using clang)

Thanks! Will fix

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-06T01:11:32Z

src/h3lib/lib/polygon.c

+    test = ((a2->lat - a1->lat) * (a1->lng - b1->lng) -
+            (a2->lng - a1->lng) * (a1->lat - b1->lat)) /
+           ((b2->lng - b1->lng) * (a2->lat - a1->lat) -
+            (b2->lat - b1->lat) * (a2->lng - a1->lng));


same as above, presumably this could result in division by zero

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-10T18:03:13Z

With the various optimizations I've added so far, I've closed the gaps in the original benchmarks, and I think the new algorithm is likely to be faster most of the time, though still slower as the ratio of vertexes to cells increases (numbers shown below are ratio of old / new):

Res 9

Original:
  Simple: 0.64x
  Complex: 0.53x
  Large: 0.92x

Now:
  Simple: 1.00x
  Complex: 0.81x
  Large: 1.3x

Res 10

Original:
  Simple: 1.07x
  Complex: 0.58x
  Large: 1.03x

Now:
  Simple: 1.56x
  Complex: 0.83x
  Large: 1.36x

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-11T01:06:58Z

Some more benchmarking data - when transpiled into h3-js, the performance looks almost exactly the same, so close that for a while I was worried I wasn't testing correctly:

polygonToCells_all_countries_0 x 3.98 ops/sec ±9.40% (30 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_all_countries_0 x 3.78 ops/sec ±11.69% (30 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_all_countries_1 x 0.74 ops/sec ±3.42% (21 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_all_countries_1 x 0.75 ops/sec ±1.33% (21 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_all_countries_2 x 0.53 ops/sec ±2.04% (21 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_all_countries_2 x 0.55 ops/sec ±1.08% (21 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_all_countries_3 x 0.20 ops/sec ±10.64% (20 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_all_countries_3 x 0.20 ops/sec ±2.62% (20 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_all_countries_4 x 0.04 ops/sec ±4.17% (20 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_all_countries_4 x 0.04 ops/sec ±3.42% (20 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_FRANCE_0 x 36.45 ops/sec ±140.62% (28 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_FRANCE_0 x 30.89 ops/sec ±151.18% (30 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_FRANCE_1 x 26.86 ops/sec ±133.33% (74 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_FRANCE_1 x 60.46 ops/sec ±61.84% (73 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_FRANCE_2 x 38.19 ops/sec ±78.95% (55 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_FRANCE_2 x 73.25 ops/sec ±0.60% (56 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_FRANCE_3 x 21.73 ops/sec ±112.03% (43 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_FRANCE_3 x 27.79 ops/sec ±82.78% (51 runs sampled)
polygonToCells_FRANCE_4 x 21.06 ops/sec ±1.18% (54 runs sampled)
polygonToCells2_FRANCE_4 x 22.21 ops/sec ±0.77% (56 runs sampled)

The all_countries suite uses multipolygons for the 258 countries in the Natural Earth 1:110m vector data, which I figured should offer a wide range of shapes and sizes. I wasn't able to benchmark past res 4, but performance looks almost identical for this dataset. Looking at an individual country like France highlights some differences (in this case, the new version performs slightly better), but overall it's a wash.

Given the memory benefits, I'm considering this a win, though I was hoping it would actually be faster 🤷.

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-11T22:42:03Z

Even more benchmarking here (now in C) suggests that the resolution of the output cells also makes a difference, which makes sense given the hierarchical search involved in the new algo. This means that the performance of the new algo decreases compared to the old algo as the res gets finer. The following benchmark is for Djibouti:

res 5
  -- polygonToCells_1: 15230.800000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
  -- polygonToCells_2: 14093.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
res 6
  -- polygonToCells_1: 46217.600000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
  -- polygonToCells_2: 87146.400000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
res 7
  -- polygonToCells_1: 222787.600000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
  -- polygonToCells_2: 552836.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
res 8
  -- polygonToCells_1: 1393634.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
  -- polygonToCells_2: 3721000.000000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
res 9
  -- polygonToCells_1:  8811737.600000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
  -- polygonToCells_2: 28252274.800000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)

By res 9 it's 3x worse than the current implementation 😢

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-12T18:51:22Z

Further investigation shows that there's something else going on, rather than just resolution, but I'm not sure what.

The benchmark for all countries has the old algo better after res 5, but I can't run it for finer resolutions:

Res 0
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_1: 1846956.400000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_2: 147822.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 1
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_1: 3200132.800000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_2: 1224828.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 2
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_1: 2814667.400000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_2: 1650428.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 3
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_1: 5786302.800000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_2: 3390271.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 4
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_1: 14079108.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_2: 13361490.400000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 5
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_1: 63288210.400000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsAllCountries_2: 73714663.800000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)

Testing Indonesia shows the same pattern, old algo is almost twice as fast by res 7. But testing a smaller set of small Indonesian islands at finer resolutions shows the opposite pattern from res 10 onward:

Res 8
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_1: 7767.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_2: 10843.000000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 9
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_1: 22478.400000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_2: 25132.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 10
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_1: 109577.000000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_2: 94577.200000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 11
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_1: 754375.400000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_2: 472660.000000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
Res 12
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_1: 4869990.800000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)
	-- polygonToCellsIndonesia_2: 2903927.600000 microseconds per iteration (5 iterations)

So again, it may be a wash 🤷‍♂️. As far as I can tell, simpler shapes with better compaction yield faster times for the new algo, complex shapes and poor compaction are faster with the old.

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-22T20:09:44Z

I put together a little animation of this process (code: https://github.com/isaacbrodsky/h3/tree/updated-polyfill-animation), to aid in visualizing what it's doing. I intentionally cropped out the first and last iterations were it's going over the base cells because the scale is so different compared to where most of the work happens.

30fps (takes a little more than a minute I think):

15fps:

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-23T18:28:18Z

I put together a little animation of this process (code: https://github.com/isaacbrodsky/h3/tree/updated-polyfill-animation), to aid in visualizing what it's doing. I intentionally cropped out the first and last iterations were it's going over the base cells because the scale is so different compared to where most of the work happens.

These are great! I was thinking about making an Observable notebook for this, but it's a little tough without reimplementing the algo, or just animating a log of the output

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-23T18:34:01Z

On my end, I did some more benchmarking, using all countries with simplified boundaries. The new algo is overall slower for the majority (81%) of the polygons:

This shows that the performance difference tends to be significantly worse as the number of cells decreases, with the worst comparisons happening when no cells at all are found within the polygon. I didn't find a correlation between false positives in the bbox checks and bad performance, though I may be looking at it wrong. I have at least one more optimization to try, which would increase false positives but avoid the most expensive parts of cellToBBox.

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-24T18:47:55Z

Latest commit speeds up the bbox calculation, gaining maybe 20% perf, but still slower for 75% of countries in the benchmark :(.

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-24T19:46:26Z

Added a lookup table for the res 0 cell bounding boxes, since we check all of them every time, and this seems to have done it! Now in my benchmark (all countries, res 1-5) the new polyfill algo is faster 80% of the time! The main issue here is that the pre-calculated res 0 bboxes seem to wipe out the advantage of the old algorithm for smaller, low-vertex shapes:

coveralls · 2023-10-24T23:44:34Z

coverage: 98.784% (+0.1%) from 98.657% when pulling 6f0a122 on nrabinowitz:updated-polyfill into 5aeff3d on uber:master.

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-25T00:10:25Z

One additional note here: My new approach to NORMALIZE_LNG seems to result in a lot of cases where we lose branch coverage (and possibly no branch coverage is possible, e.g. if we set the normalization argument explicitly we'll never hit most branches). Open to better options here - I'm also not thrilled that my current implementation hits the most common case, NORMALIZE_NONE, last. In other languages I'd probably pass around a function here, but that's harder and more costly in C. Let me know if you have a better option.

dfellis · 2023-10-27T15:01:10Z

src/h3lib/lib/latLng.c

+    switch (normalization) {
+        case NORMALIZE_NONE:
+            return lng;
+        case NORMALIZE_EAST:
+            return lng < 0 ? lng + (double)M_2PI : lng;
+        case NORMALIZE_WEST:
+            return lng > 0 ? lng - (double)M_2PI : lng;
+    }


GCC is complaining that there's no default case here so it's possible to reach the end of the function without returning a number.

Perhaps this could be rewritten as:

Suggested change

switch (normalization) {

case NORMALIZE_NONE:

return lng;

case NORMALIZE_EAST:

return lng < 0 ? lng + (double)M_2PI : lng;

case NORMALIZE_WEST:

return lng > 0 ? lng - (double)M_2PI : lng;

}

switch (normalization) {

case NORMALIZE_EAST:

return lng < 0 ? lng + (double)M_2PI : lng;

case NORMALIZE_WEST:

return lng > 0 ? lng - (double)M_2PI : lng;

default:

return lng;

}

Updated, thanks

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-29T15:55:02Z

src/apps/testapps/testPolygonToCellsExperimental.c

+    // --------------------------------------------
+    // maxPolygonToCellsSize
+    // --------------------------------------------


Is maxPolygonToCellsSize modified in this PR? Are these tests duplicated?

These tests are duplicated. My intent was to have copy/paste versions of the old tests with the new function, so that when we drop the old function it would just be removing the -Experimental files. But I guess you're right that there's no point duplicating the maxPolygonToCellsSize tests, I can remove.

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-29T16:00:49Z

src/h3lib/include/polyfill.h

+DECLSPEC H3Error H3_EXPORT(polygonToCellsExperimental)(
+    const GeoPolygon *polygon, int res, uint32_t flags, H3Index *out);


For clarity, this is not intended to be part of the public API when this PR is merged (as it is not in h3api.h.in?)

Correct - I added DECLSPEC so that it would be available for export, but I don't expect us to expose it in the API until we transparently replace the old function.

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-29T16:08:32Z

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

+/**
+ * Get a base cell by number, or H3_NULL if out of bounds
+ */
+static H3Index getBaseCell(int baseCellNum) {


This function name looks like it could do the opposite and accept and index and return a number, maybe rename to indexFromBaseCell or something?

Makes sense, will rename to baseCellNumToIndex

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-29T16:09:17Z

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

+ * Get a base cell by number, or H3_NULL if out of bounds
+ */
+static H3Index getBaseCell(int baseCellNum) {
+    if (NEVER(baseCellNum < 0) || baseCellNum >= NUM_BASE_CELLS) {


I don't think this needs NEVER if the function is marked non-static and a unit test exercises this case.

True, can update. It's not clear to me whether static offers any compilation advantages, or whether it just indicates a local function. We settled on static to avoid _underscore names to denote local functions, but I guess it makes sense to test this separately.

isaacbrodsky · 2023-10-29T16:14:15Z

src/h3lib/lib/polyfill.c

+
+    // Initialize bounding boxes for polygon and any holes. Memory allocated
+    // here must be released through iterDestroyPolygonCompact
+    iter._bboxes = H3_MEMORY(malloc)((polygon->numHoles + 1) * sizeof(BBox));


Suggested change

iter._bboxes = H3_MEMORY(malloc)((polygon->numHoles + 1) * sizeof(BBox));

iter._bboxes = H3_MEMORY(calloc)(polygon->numHoles + 1, sizeof(BBox));

Requesting this change to head off any integer overflow problem

Will update, thanks

nrabinowitz · 2023-10-31T17:15:13Z

Thanks everyone for the reviews and support on this!

nrabinowitz requested review from ajfriend, dfellis and isaacbrodsky October 3, 2023 23:44

nrabinowitz marked this pull request as draft October 3, 2023 23:45

isaacbrodsky reviewed Oct 6, 2023

View reviewed changes

nrabinowitz marked this pull request as ready for review October 10, 2023 18:05

nrabinowitz force-pushed the updated-polyfill branch from 9e8b1e4 to 0a3b3a5 Compare October 24, 2023 23:42

Nick Rabinowitz added 11 commits October 25, 2023 11:31

Add scaleBBox, with tests

f72cbc2

Add cellToChildBBox with tests

8a27b2a

Cleanup

5bc92fc

Implement bboxIntersects, with tests

0a856f2

Add lineIntersectsLine, with tests

42a1ea6

Implement cellBoundaryInsidePolygon

ec1a6f6

Tests and fixes for cellBoundaryCrossesGeoLoop

34ba399

First pass at polyfill algo, untested

5f6ede9

Use const polygon

cc6a060

Fixed several issues, most tests passing

0ec7869

Fix transmeridian handling

793f46e

Nick Rabinowitz added 13 commits October 25, 2023 11:31

Fix transmeridian bbox checks

216500a

Intersects -> overlaps, cheap checks for poles and bbox containment

77a13fb

Simplify bboxOverlapsBBox

0866771

Remove old polyfill algo, update tests

29fc0e9

Update CHANGELOG

e15845e

Add test coverage

8cef837

Restore old algo, rename new to polygonToCellsExperimental

eef2bc5

First pass at faster cellToBBox

aa2990b

Update scale factor

47e1d23

Use a lookup table for res0 bounding boxes

b63921b

Add test coverage

dad85b0

Copy tests for testPolygonToCellsReported

3fe75a7

Re-add test for uncovered lines

475d8f6

nrabinowitz force-pushed the updated-polyfill branch from 2250df0 to 475d8f6 Compare October 25, 2023 18:32

Nick Rabinowitz added 4 commits October 25, 2023 14:26

Restore simpler NORMALIZE_LNG macro for point-in-poly

c3c206d

Use switch-based function for normalizeLng

862dd86

Move normalizeLng to latlng, fix tests

6c55f50

Add separate benchmark for new polyfill

b774725

dfellis reviewed Oct 27, 2023

View reviewed changes

Fix switch to always return

5453092

dfellis approved these changes Oct 27, 2023

View reviewed changes

isaacbrodsky reviewed Oct 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

isaacbrodsky approved these changes Oct 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

Nick Rabinowitz added 3 commits October 31, 2023 09:42

Update and tests for baseCellNumToCell

8652b4e

Drop dupe tests, malloc -> calloc

6b94307

Fix calloc

6f0a122

nrabinowitz merged commit 5d7c1c1 into uber:master Oct 31, 2023

nrabinowitz deleted the updated-polyfill branch October 31, 2023 17:20

isaacbrodsky mentioned this pull request Nov 1, 2023

Add fuzzer discovered tests for polygonToCells #742

Draft

		// If we make it out of the loop, we're done
		iterDestroyPolygonCompact(iter);

		DECLSPEC H3Error H3_EXPORT(polygonToCellsExperimental)(
		const GeoPolygon polygon, int res, uint32_t flags, H3Index out);

	iter._bboxes = H3_MEMORY(malloc)((polygon->numHoles + 1) * sizeof(BBox));
	iter._bboxes = H3_MEMORY(calloc)(polygon->numHoles + 1, sizeof(BBox));

Conversation

nrabinowitz commented Oct 3, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Goals

Algorithm Overview

Results

For Discussion

Benchmarks

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

isaacbrodsky Oct 6, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 10, 2023

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 11, 2023

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 11, 2023

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 12, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

isaacbrodsky commented Oct 22, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 23, 2023

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 23, 2023

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 24, 2023

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 24, 2023

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Oct 24, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nrabinowitz commented Oct 25, 2023

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nrabinowitz commented Oct 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

isaacbrodsky Oct 6, 2023 •

edited

Loading

nrabinowitz commented Oct 12, 2023 •

edited

Loading

isaacbrodsky commented Oct 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

coveralls commented Oct 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

isaacbrodsky Oct 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading