[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1478?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12654056#action_12654056
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1478:
---------------------------------------
I found a hidden bug in FieldSortedHitQueue that materialized when writing a
TestCase for a SortField.BYTE sorting with custom parser (it took me a long
time to find out whats happening). The problem is, that the comparator for byte
fields returned SortField.INT in sortType() instead of SortField.BYTE. The
effect of this was, that my new code crahsed when generating the new SortField
in the constructor because of the incorrect Parser/SortField type. The other
problem was, that on later calling the cache again, it would return another
hit, because the type was different. The problem is, that this does not affect
correctness of the previous implementation, but may coud lead to errors, like
with my new impl.
I fix this bug (its just one line) in my next patch (I will supply it shortly).
Is it OK, or should I open a separate bug report?
> Missing possibility to supply custom FieldParser when sorting search results
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1478
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1478
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.4
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Attachments: LUCENE-1478-no-superinterface.patch
>
>
> When implementing the new TrieRangeQuery for contrib (LUCENE-1470), I was
> confronted by the problem that the special trie-encoded values (which are
> longs in a special encoding) cannot be sorted by Searcher.search() and
> SortField. The problem is: If you use SortField.LONG, you get
> NumberFormatExceptions. The trie encoded values may be sorted using
> SortField.String (as the encoding is in such a way, that they are sortable as
> Strings), but this is very memory ineffective.
> ExtendedFieldCache gives the possibility to specify a custom LongParser when
> retrieving the cached values. But you cannot use this during searching,
> because there is no possibility to supply this custom LongParser to the
> SortField.
> I propose a change in the sort classes:
> Include a pointer to the parser instance to be used in SortField (if not
> given use the default). My idea is to create a SortField using a new
> constructor
> {code}SortField(String field, int type, Object parser, boolean reverse){code}
> The parser is "object" because all current parsers have no super-interface.
> The ideal solution would be to have:
> {code}SortField(String field, int type, FieldCache.Parser parser, boolean
> reverse){code}
> and FieldCache.Parser is a super-interface (just empty, more like a
> marker-interface) of all other parsers (like LongParser...). The sort
> implementation then must be changed to respect the given parser (if not
> NULL), else use the default FieldCache.getXXXX without parser.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
