alt Hacker NewsThere is a lot of literature on join operations using discrete global grid systems (DGGS). H3 is a widely used DGGS optimized for visualization.
If joins are a critical performance-sensitive operation, the most important property of a DGGS is congruency. H3 is not congruent it was optimized for visualization, where congruency doesn’t matter, rather than analytical computation. For example, the article talks about deduplication, which is not even necessary with a congruent DGGS. You can do joins with H3 but it is not recommended as a general rule unless the data is small such that you can afford to brute-force it to some extent.
H3 is great for doing point geometry aggregates. It shines at that. Not so much geospatial joins though. DGGS optimized for analytic computation (and joins by implication) exist, they just aren’t optimal for trivial visualization.
I agree that the lack of congruency in H3 hexagons can cause weird overlaps and gaps if you plot mixed resolutions naively, but there are some workarounds that work pretty well in practice. For example, if you have mixed resolutions from compacted H3 cells but a single “logical” target resolution underneath, you can plot the coarser cells not with their native geometry, but using the outline of their children. When you do that, there are no gaps. (Totally unrelated but fun: that shape is a fractal sometimes called a "flowsnake" or a "Gosper Island" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosper_curve), which predates H3 by decades.)
That said, this feels like an issue with rendering geometry rather than with the index itself. I’m curious to hear more about why you think the lack of congruency affects H3’s performance for spatial joins. Under the hood, it’s still a parent–child hierarchy very similar to S2’s — H3 children are topological rather than geometric children (even though they still mostly overlap).