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 2012/12/06 14:59:00 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4592) Fix Formula in Javadocs of
NumericRangeQuery
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4592?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13511356#comment-13511356 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-4592:
---------------------------------------
The formula is correct - I verified it again. The problem is more the description above. The formula is about the number of terms visited by the NRQ and is not the number of terms in the index. The javadocs are incorrect about this.
Shai pointed that out to me, this is why i opened the issue.
> Fix Formula in Javadocs of NumericRangeQuery
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4592
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4592
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: general/javadocs
> Affects Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Fix For: 4.1, 5.0
>
>
> The formula in the JavaDocs of NumericRangeQuery that returns the maximum number of terms in the NRQ's TermsEnum is incorrect. The original one from the paper did not use precisionStep but used the number of terms per value from the tokenizer.
> I will fix the documentation and also add some more numbers to the Docs of NumericField
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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