Kristoffer Carlsson
Kristoffer Carlsson
> Do you maybe have an idea how that could happen? Could you try run with `--check-bounds=no` to ensure there is no bounds error happening that is removed by an...
> Relatively straightforward changes to the inrange methods Straightforward huh? ;) Benchmark: ``` julia> tree = KDTree(rand(3, 10^5)); julia> using BenchmarkTools julia> @btime inrange(tree, [0.0, 0.0, 0.0], 0.1); ``` Master:...
I guess you could create the inverse lookup (for all points) a single time and then reuse that.
It just does this https://github.com/KristofferC/NearestNeighbors.jl/blob/2efd998b6bb74d175e6cbbe1c8bc8e775e502f0b/src/tree_ops.jl#L97
Yes it should be documented better (I didn't add that functionality hehe). `skip` takes one argument which is the index of a point. If the function returns true, the point...
Yeah, passing the point itself as an argument makes sense. Hmm, not sure it can be done on a backwards compatible way.
It would be up to the user to define how equality should be checked by constructing the `skip` function. The package only need to provide the necessary data to that...
Yeah, I've thought about this too. Just to check, you know that you can query knn against multiple points in one call, which is faster than one at a time?
Do you have some performance benchmarks? I think I tried this a while ago and while there was a speedup I don't recall it as "huge".
Thanks for the PR! Do you think perhaps `in_range_interval` is more descriptive? The `2` is a bit obscure to me, is it used in similar packages in other programming langauges?...