[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4369?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13452874#comment-13452874
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4369:
-------------------------------------
Chris: well there is a lot more to convey than the old Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED:
# text is treated as if it went thru keywordanalyzer
# term frequencies and positions are omitted
# length normalization and index-time boosts are disabled
The idea of "MatchOnly" is to describe that the field is really only useful for
matching,
not searching. The other 2 things this Field does wrt scoring and index options
become important
when someone adds multiple instances under the same name: I think its important
to convey
that its still only 'matching' and they wont have real scoring here.
The problem I see with "StringField" as a name is that it doesn't hint at any
of this. The current
name can lead you to believe you should use it because you happen to have your
content as a Java String.
> StringFields name is unintuitive and not helpful
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4369
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4369
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
>
> There's a huge difference between TextField and StringField, StringField
> screws up scoring and bypasses your Analyzer.
> (see java-user thread "Custom Analyzer Not Called When Indexing" as an
> example.)
> The name we use here is vital, otherwise people will get bad results.
> I think we should rename StringField to MatchOnlyField.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
