Hi Scott,
> But here's the issue that I solved but it seems like there is either a
> bug in the NumericRangeFilter or there is some additional documentation
> needed. I created a NumericRangeFilter with a null for the min. I
> would have thought that that meant the minInclusive could have been
> true
> or false and it wouldn't make a difference. That wasn't my experience.
> It appears that it needs to be true for things to work the way I would
> expect. It seems like that behavior should be documented or if it's a
> bug, it should be fixed (but maybe I'm missing a use case).
What problems are you experiencing? For min/max==null, the inclusive flags make
no difference. Can you provide a testcase? The code in
NumericRangeQuery.NumericRangeTermEnum.<init> (which is used for the filter,
too) is keeping the lowest/biggest value for null values.
> Btw- I believe the example in the first part of the description of this
> class has the min and max values reversed.
>
> Filter f = NumericRangeFilter.newFloatRange("weight", 0.3f, 0.10f,
> true,
> true);
That is indeed wrong :-) I'll fix for 3.1.
Uwe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
