, but a better API would be if offset
became
a pair of ints, first being the index of the Field for
getFields(name) and
the second being the offset in that instance of the field.
Christopher
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Incorrect-Token-Offset-when-using-multiple-fieldable
in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Incorrect-Token-Offset-when-using-multiple-fieldable-instance-tp15833468p18238566.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Toph wrote:
Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
We could alternatively extend TokenStream so you could query it for
the final offset, then fix indexing to use that value instead of the
endOffset of the last token that it saw.
Querying the tokenstream for the final offset would good, but then
This is how Lucene has worked for quite some time (since 1.9).
When there are multiple fields with the same name in one Document,
each field's offset starts from the last offset (offset of the last
token) seen in the previous field. If tokens are skipped at the end
there's no way
Do you know if there will be side-effects if we replace in
DocumentWriter$FieldData#invertField
offset = offsetEnd+1;
by
offset = stringValue.length();
I still not understand the reason of such choice for the incrementation
of the start offset.
Regards.
Michael McCandless wrote:
This is
Well, first off, sometimes the thing being indexed isn't a string, so
you have no stringValue to get its length. It could be a Reader or a
TokenStream.
Second off, it's conceivable that an analyzer computes its own
interesting offsets that are not in fact simple indices into the
Hi,
I currently use multiple fieldable instances for indexing sentences of a
document.
When there is only one single fieldable instance, the token offset
generation performed in DocumentWriter is correct.
The problem appears when there is two or more fieldable instances. In
