I was searching the last few days for a stable implementation of the R-Tree with support of unlimited dimensions (20 or so would be enough). I only found this http://sourceforge.net/projects/jsi/ but they only support 2 dimensions.
Another Option would be a multidimensional implementation of an interval-tree.
Maybe I'm completly wrong with the idea of using an R-Tree or Intervall-Tree for my Problem so i state the Problem in short, that you can send me your thoughts about this.
The Problem I need to solve is some kind of nearest-neighbour search. I have a set of Antennas and rooms and for each antenna an interval of Integers. E.g. antenna 1, min -92, max -85. In fact it could be represented as room -> set of antennas -> interval for antenna. The idea was that each room spans a box in the R-Tree over the dimension of the antennas and in each dimension by the interval.
If I get a query with N-Antennas and values for each antenna I then could just represent the Information as a query point in the room and retrieve the rooms "nearest" to the point.
Hope you got an Idea of the problem and my idea.
I'm not entirely clear on what your exact problem is, but an R-Tree or interval tree would not work well in 20 dimensions. That's not a huge number of dimensions, but it is large enough for the curse of dimensionality to begin showing up.
To see what I mean, consider just trying to look at all of the neighbors of a box, including ones off of corners and edges. With 20 dimensions, you'll have 320 - 1 or 3,486,784,400 neighboring boxes. (You get that by realizing that along each axis a neighbor can be -1 unit, 0 unit, or +1 unit, but (0,0,0) is not a neighbor because it represents the original box.)
I'm sorry, but you either need to accept brute force searching, or else analyze your problem better and come up with a cleverer solution.
Be aware that R-Trees can degrade badly when you have discrete data. The first thing you really need to find out is an appropriate data representation, then test if your queries work on a subset of the data.
R-Trees will only make your queries faster. If they don't work in the first place, it will not help. You should test your approach without using R-Trees first. Unless you hit a large amount of data (say, 100.000 objects), a linear scan in-memory can easily outperform an R-Tree, in particular when you need some adapter layer because it is not well-intergrated with your code.
The obvious approach here is to just use bounding rectangles, and linearly scan over them. If they work, you can then store the MBRs in an R-Tree to get some performance improvements. But if it doesn't work with a linear scan, it won't work with an R-Tree either (it will not work faster.)
I have found this R*-Tree implementation in Java which seems to offer many features:
https://github.com/davidmoten/rtree
You might want to check it out!
Another good implementation in Java is ELKI: https://elki-project.github.io/.
You can use PostgreSQL’s Generalized Search Tree indexing facility.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8456240/r-tree-implementation-java