[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1713?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12723064#action_12723064
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1713 at 6/23/09 7:54 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
bq. Maybe a good addition to FieldCacheRangeFilter would be to do the same
currently only possible with StringIndex for NumericFields?
see LUCENE-1487
was (Author: thetaphi):
bq. Maybe a good addition to FieldCacheRangeFilter would be to do the same
currently only possible with StringIndex for NumericFields?
Some code inspections changed my mind: FieldCacheRangeFilter only works good
with StringIndex fields, because there is no scanning on the whole fieldcache
needed. Only scanning if a doc is in the sorted term list from StringIndex.
> Rename RangeQuery -> TextRangeQuery
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1713
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1713
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.9
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 2.9
>
>
> Since we now have NumericRangeQuery (LUCENE-1701) we should rename RangeQuery
> to TextRangeQuery to make it clear that TextRangeQuery (TermRangeQuery?
> StringRangeQuery) is based entirely on text comparison.
> And, existing users on upgrading to 2.9 and using RangeQuery for [slow]
> numeric searching would realize they now have a good option for numeric range
> searching.
--
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
