I see. Each project not using the supported types should create its own SegmentInfoFormat able to serialize the involved sort fields. This should be provided by a custom FilterCodec, registered with the SPI mechanism. Also the checkings about supported SortFields should be skipped in some way.
I think that autoserializable SortFields should be considerably easier to use, keeping the purpose of LUCENE-6766: to ease the usage of index sorting, thus not being an expert feature. 2016-08-16 20:56 GMT+01:00 Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>: > It would be a custom Codec implementation, where your codec could then > make its own SegmentInfoFormat that knew how to serialize the custom sort > field you had set on IndexWriterConfig. > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Andres de la Peña <adelap...@stratio.com> > wrote: > >> Do you mean creating a custom SegmentInfoFormat per each custom >> SortField? >> >> 2016-08-16 10:20 GMT+01:00 Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> >> : >> >>> I like that idea! >>> >>> Mike McCandless >>> >>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe another way would be to create a custom SegmentInfoFormat that >>>> handles the serialization of this custom SortField. That would put the >>>> burden on the user to handle backward compatibility, but on the other >>>> hand >>>> it would not require SortFields to handle their own serialization? It >>>> would >>>> not work today since IndexWriterConfig does its own checks, but maybe >>>> this >>>> is something we can fix to allow for custom sort orders? >>>> >>>> Le lun. 15 août 2016 à 20:57, Michael McCandless < >>>> luc...@mikemccandless.com> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>> > Hmm I see. Yeah, it seems like the only way forward is to explore >>>> > SortField (and its subclasses) handling their own serialization, >>>> maybe via >>>> > SPI (what we use for codecs), though that sounds somewhat heavy. >>>> Maybe >>>> > open an issue for discussion? >>>> > >>>> > Mike McCandless >>>> > >>>> > http://blog.mikemccandless.com >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Andres de la Peña < >>>> adelap...@stratio.com >>>> > > >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Hi, >>>> > > >>>> > > We are using a custom SortField >>>> > > < >>>> > https://github.com/Stratio/cassandra-lucene-index/blob/branc >>>> h-3.0.8/plugin/src/main/java/com/stratio/cassandra/lucene/ke >>>> y/KeySort.java >>>> > > >>>> > > to sort Cassandra primary keys. The sort criteria is based on the >>>> > > marshalled values of each of the columns in the primary key, so it >>>> is not >>>> > > trivial at all to compute an equivalent collated value to be >>>> indexed in >>>> > doc >>>> > > values. >>>> > > >>>> > > Maybe it could be possible to define how to do this >>>> > > serialization-deserialization when extending SortField. This way it >>>> will >>>> > be >>>> > > possible to recover this lost Lucene 5.x feature, don't you think >>>> so? >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks, >>>> > > >>>> > > 2016-08-14 23:09 GMT+01:00 Michael McCandless < >>>> luc...@mikemccandless.com >>>> > >: >>>> > > >>>> > >> Unfortunately, as of LUCENE-6766, index sorting only supports >>>> simple >>>> > sort >>>> > >> types. This was needed because Lucene needs to be able to easily >>>> > serialize >>>> > >> and de-serialize the sort order into the index. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Can you compute your sort criteria and index it as a doc values >>>> field >>>> > and >>>> > >> then sort by that? >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Or, patches welcome too ;) >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Mike McCandless >>>> > >> >>>> > >> http://blog.mikemccandless.com >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Andres de la Peña < >>>> > adelap...@stratio.com >>>> > >> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> Hi, >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> LUCENE-6766 allows to define index sorting on IndexWriterConfig >>>> instead >>>> > >>> of >>>> > >>> defining a SortingMergePolicy. However, the new index sorting only >>>> > >>> supports >>>> > >>> some types of sort fields, and the old SortingMergePolicy, which >>>> didn't >>>> > >>> have this limitation, has been removed. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> What should do projects depending on index sort with custom >>>> SortFields? >>>> > >>> Ignore the new index writer sorting and build their own old-style >>>> > sorting >>>> > >>> merge policy? >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> Thanks, >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -- >>>> > >>> Andrés de la Peña >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta >>>> > >>> 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid >>>> > >>> Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd >>>> > >>> <https://twitter.com/StratioBD>* >>>> > >>> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Andrés de la Peña >>>> > > >>>> > > Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta >>>> > > 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid >>>> > > Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd >>>> > > <https://twitter.com/StratioBD>* >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Andrés de la Peña >> >> Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta >> 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid >> Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd >> <https://twitter.com/StratioBD>* >> > > -- Andrés de la Peña Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd <https://twitter.com/StratioBD>*
