You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2011/06/09 12:18:58 UTC
[jira] [Created] (LUCENE-3187) Store NumericField precisionStep in
fnx file
Store NumericField precisionStep in fnx file
--------------------------------------------
Key: LUCENE-3187
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3187
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: core/index
Affects Versions: 3.2, 3.1, 3.0, 2.9
Reporter: Uwe Schindler
This is a similar problem like LUCENE-3186:
The following question was sent to user list: [http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/201106.mbox/%3C614C529D389A5944B351F7DFB7594F24012AA214@uksrpblkexb01.detica.com%3E]
The main problem is that you have to pass the precision step and must knwo the field type of numeric fields before doing a query, else you get wrong results. We can maybe store the type and precision step in fnx file (like we do for stored numeric fields in FieldsWriter).
I am not sure whats the best way to do it (without too much code specialization), but it seems a good idea. On the other hand, we don't store references to the Analyzer in the fnx file, so why for numeric field (it's just like an analyzer - if you change it, results are wrong)?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3187) Store NumericField precisionStep
in fnx file
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3187?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13046480#comment-13046480 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-3187:
---------------------------------------
Robert commented on LUCENE-3186:
{quote}
do we really need to do this? I guess also looking at LUCENE-3187, I think I'm against this trend.
Shall we put analyzer classnames in there too? If we are going to put docvalues type and precision step, well then i want the stopwords file in the fnx file too!
At some point, if a user is going to shoot themselves in the foot, we simply cannot stop them, and I don't think its our job to.
{quote}
I am also not really happy with this trend. I just opened LUCENE-3187 to start a discussion. In my opinion we should improve documentation instead.
> Store NumericField precisionStep in fnx file
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3187
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3187
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Affects Versions: 2.9, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
>
> This is a similar problem like LUCENE-3186:
> The following question was sent to user list: [http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/201106.mbox/%3C614C529D389A5944B351F7DFB7594F24012AA214@uksrpblkexb01.detica.com%3E]
> The main problem is that you have to pass the precision step and must knwo the field type of numeric fields before doing a query, else you get wrong results. We can maybe store the type and precision step in fnx file (like we do for stored numeric fields in FieldsWriter).
> I am not sure whats the best way to do it (without too much code specialization), but it seems a good idea. On the other hand, we don't store references to the Analyzer in the fnx file, so why for numeric field (it's just like an analyzer - if you change it, results are wrong)?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org