[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1478?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12654537#action_12654537
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1478:
---------------------------------------
Hi Mike,
patch looks good, checked each change of you with TortoiseMerge. All tests pass
including Trie ones.
The only comments: You added this java docs to hashCode() and equals() in the
patch of LUCENE-1481. Maybe you should add the parser here, too.
/** Returns a hash code value for this object. If a
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] SortComparatorSource} was provided, it must
* properly implement hashCode. */
But on the other hand side: If the parser and/or comparator are static
singletons (like it is done by the TrieUtils factories) they are not needed to
implement equals and hashcode. The default Object equals/hashcode is enough for
singletons. And I think most parsers and comparators are singletons. A short
not should be enough.
The additional null check is OK but in my opinion not needed, because
field!=null when not one of the special RELEVANCE/DOCORDER sorts. For
consistency we may add the check to the other ctors, too.
> 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, LUCENE-1478.patch,
> LUCENE-1478.patch, LUCENE-1478.patch, LUCENE-1478.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]
