[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14172260#comment-14172260
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-6006:
-------------------------------------
I like the latest patch. The back compat is contained, and the more I think
about it, the more horrible I think this boolean is.
> Replace FieldInfo.normsType with FieldInfo.hasNorms boolean
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6006
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6006
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 5.0, Trunk
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-6006.patch, LUCENE-6006.patch, LUCENE-6006.patch
>
>
> I came across this precursor while working on LUCENE-6005:
> I think FieldInfo.normsType can only be null (field did not index
> norms) or DocValuesType.NUMERIC (it did). I'd like to simplify to
> just boolean hasNorms.
> This is a strange boolean, though: in theory it should be derived from
> {{indexed && omitNorms == false}}, but we have it for the exceptions
> case where every document in a segment hit an exception and never
> added norms. I think this is the only reason it exists? (In theory,
> such cases should result in 100% deleted segments, which IW should
> then drop ... but seems dangerous to "rely" on that).
> So I changed the indexing chain to just fill in the default (0) norms
> for all documents in such exceptional cases; this way going forward
> (starting with 5.0 indices) we really don't need this hasNorms. But
> we still need it for pre-5.0 indices...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
