[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1673?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12720223#action_12720223
]
Yonik Seeley edited comment on LUCENE-1673 at 6/16/09 9:30 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
bq. But we are already "baking in" the trie indexing format? That's what
"moving trie to core" implies.
Nah - no more than the porter stemmer or any other type of analysis is "baked
in".
I thought "move" meant "rename" (package and class name). Upgrading it's
stability and how "core" it was.
bq. "hey how come I didn't get a NumericField back on my doc?
Perhaps a good reason to not add a NumericField. It doesn't currently exist
and is not necessary for Trie.
Want a convenience method for the user? TrieUtils.createDocumentField(...) ,
same as the sortField currently works.
The current Trie behavior works the same way everything else does in Lucene...
changing that and encoding types into the index deserves it's own issue and
discussion (and something big like that doesn't seem to belong in 2.9 which is
winding down).
was (Author: ysee...@gmail.com):
bq. But we are already "baking in" the trie indexing format? That's what
"moving trie to core" implies.
Nah - no more than the porter stemmer or any other type of analysis is "baked
in".
I thought "move" meant "rename" (package and class name). Upgrading it's
stability and how "core" it was.
bq. "hey how come I didn't get a NumericField back on my doc?
Perhaps a good reason to not add a NumericField. It doesn't currently exist
and is not necessary for Trie.
Want a convenience method for the user? TrieUtils.createDocumentField(...) ,
same as the sortField currently works.
The current Trie behavior works the same way everything else does in Lucene...
changing that and encoding types into the index deserves it's own issue and
discussion (and something big like that doesn't seem to belong in 2.9 which is
winding down).
> Move TrieRange to core
> ----------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1673
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1673
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.9
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1673.patch, LUCENE-1673.patch, LUCENE-1673.patch
>
>
> TrieRange was iterated many times and seems stable now (LUCENE-1470,
> LUCENE-1582, LUCENE-1602). There is lots of user interest, Solr added it to
> its default FieldTypes (SOLR-940) and if possible I want to move it to core
> before release of 2.9.
> Before this can be done, there are some things to think about:
> # There are now classes called LongTrieRangeQuery, IntTrieRangeQuery, how
> should they be called in core? I would suggest to leave it as it is. On the
> other hand, if this keeps our only numeric query implementation, we could
> call it LongRangeQuery, IntRangeQuery or NumericRangeQuery (see below, here
> are problems). Same for the TokenStreams and Filters.
> # Maybe the pairs of classes for indexing and searching should be moved into
> one class: NumericTokenStream, NumericRangeQuery, NumericRangeFilter. The
> problem here: ctors must be able to pass int, long, double, float as range
> parameters. For the end user, mixing these 4 types in one class is hard to
> handle. If somebody forgets to add a L to a long, it suddenly instantiates a
> int version of range query, hitting no results and so on. Same with other
> types. Maybe accept java.lang.Number as parameter (because nullable for
> half-open bounds) and one enum for the type.
> # TrieUtils move into o.a.l.util? or document or?
> # Move TokenStreams into o.a.l.analysis, ShiftAttribute into
> o.a.l.analysis.tokenattributes? Somewhere else?
> # If we rename the classes, should Solr stay with Trie (because there are
> different impls)?
> # Maybe add a subclass of AbstractField, that automatically creates these
> TokenStreams and omits norms/tf per default for easier addition to Document
> instances?
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
