[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1673?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12720231#action_12720231
]
Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-1673:
-----------------------------------------
bq. This is that baking in a specific implementation into the index format that
I don't like.
+many
bq. I do agree that retrieving a doc is already "buggy", in that various things
are lost from your index time doc (a well known issue at this point!)
How on earth is it buggy? You're working with an inverted index, you aren't
supposed to get original document from it in the first place. It's like saying
a hash function is buggy because it is not reversible.
The less coupling various lucene components have on each other - the better. If
you'd like to have end-to-end experience for numeric fields, build something
schema-like and put it in contribs. If it's hard to build - Lucene core is to
blame, it's not extensible enough. From my experience, for that purporse it's
okay as it is.
> 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
