[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9279?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15393856#comment-15393856
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on SOLR-9279:
--------------------------------------
Github user softwaredoug commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/49
I just think we have to tread carefully. Comparing two 64 bit timestamps
could result in surprising bugs where an event seconds after another isn't
greater than the earlier event due to a loss of precision casting to double. So
I'd rather enforce the safest possible and most correct comparison and make the
interface not that general.
Is your concern performance based? Can we reduce the number of times we
call doubleVal/longVal. Sorry I was not aware of the performance implications.
We could also make the values themselves implement Comparable and let them
be compared to other function values. But this seems complex and we'd still
need to enforce the correct comparison.
> Add greater than, less than, etc in Solr function queries
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-9279
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9279
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: search
> Reporter: Doug Turnbull
> Fix For: master (7.0)
>
>
> If you use the "if" function query, you'll often expect to be able to use
> greater than/less than functions. For example, you might want to boost books
> written in the past 7 years. Unfortunately, there's no "greater than"
> function query that will return non-zero when the lhs > rhs. Instead to get
> this, you need to create really awkward function queries like I do here
> (http://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2014/11/26/stepwise-date-boosting-in-solr/):
> if(min(0,sub(ms(mydatefield),sub(ms(NOW),315569259747))),0.8,1)
> The pull request attached to this Jira adds the following function queries
> (https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/49)
> -gt(lhs, rhs) (returns 1 if lhs > rhs, 0 otherwise)
> -lt(lhs, rhs) (returns 1 if lhs < rhs, 0 otherwise)
> -gte
> -lte
> -eq
> So instead of
> if(min(0,sub(ms(mydatefield),sub(ms(NOW),315569259747))),0.8,1)
> one could now write
> if(lt(ms(mydatefield),315569259747,0.8,1)
> (if mydatefield < 315569259747 then 0.8 else 1)
> A bit more readable and less puzzling
--
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
