Chris's RangeFilter does not cache anything where as QueryFilter does caching. Is it better to add the caching funtionality to RangeFilter also? or does it not make any difference?

Praveen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Numeric Range Restrictions: Queries vs Filters



On Nov 23, 2004, at 4:18 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Hoss wrote:
The attachment contains my RangeFilter, a unit test that demonstrates it,
and a Benchmarking unit test that does a side-by-side comparison with
RangeQuery [6]. If developers feel that this class is useful, then by all
means roll it into the code base. (90% of it is cut/pasted from
DateFilter/RangeQuery anyway)

+1

DateFilter could be deprecated, and replaced with the more generally and appropriately named RangeFilter. Should we also deprecate DateField, in preference for DateTools?

Done. I deprecated DateField and DateFilter, and added the RangeFilter class contributed by Chris.


I did a little code cleanup, Chris, renaming some RangeFilter variables and correcting typos in the Javadocs. Let me know if everything looks ok.

Erik


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to