[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1478) Missing possibility to supply custom FieldParser when sorting search results

["Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1478?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12654537#action_12654537 ] 

thetaphi edited comment on LUCENE-1478 at 12/8/08 11:59 AM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Mike,

patch looks good, checked each change of you with TortoiseMerge. All tests pass including Trie ones.

The only comments: You added this java docs to hashCode() and equals() in the patch of LUCENE-1481. Maybe you should add the parser here, too.

{code}
  /** Returns a hash code value for this object.  If a
   *  {@link SortComparatorSource} was provided, it must
   *  properly implement hashCode. */
{code}
But on the other hand side: If the parser and/or comparator are static singletons (like it is done by the TrieUtils factories) they are not needed to implement equals and hashcode. The default Object equals/hashcode is enough for singletons. And I think most parsers and comparators are singletons. A short not should be enough.

The additional null check is OK but in my opinion not needed, because field!=null when not one of the special RELEVANCE/DOCORDER sorts. For consistency we may add the check to the other ctors, too.

      was (Author: thetaphi):
    Hi Mike,

patch looks good, checked each change of you with TortoiseMerge. All tests pass including Trie ones.

The only comments: You added this java docs to hashCode() and equals() in the patch of LUCENE-1481. Maybe you should add the parser here, too.

  /** Returns a hash code value for this object.  If a
   *  {@link SortComparatorSource} was provided, it must
   *  properly implement hashCode. */

But on the other hand side: If the parser and/or comparator are static singletons (like it is done by the TrieUtils factories) they are not needed to implement equals and hashcode. The default Object equals/hashcode is enough for singletons. And I think most parsers and comparators are singletons. A short not should be enough.

The additional null check is OK but in my opinion not needed, because field!=null when not one of the special RELEVANCE/DOCORDER sorts. For consistency we may add the check to the other ctors, too.
  
> Missing possibility to supply custom FieldParser when sorting search results
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1478
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1478
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.4
>            Reporter: Uwe Schindler
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1478-no-superinterface.patch, LUCENE-1478.patch, LUCENE-1478.patch, LUCENE-1478.patch, LUCENE-1478.patch
>
>
> When implementing the new TrieRangeQuery for contrib (LUCENE-1470), I was confronted by the problem that the special trie-encoded values (which are longs in a special encoding) cannot be sorted by Searcher.search() and SortField. The problem is: If you use SortField.LONG, you get NumberFormatExceptions. The trie encoded values may be sorted using SortField.String (as the encoding is in such a way, that they are sortable as Strings), but this is very memory ineffective.
> ExtendedFieldCache gives the possibility to specify a custom LongParser when retrieving the cached values. But you cannot use this during searching, because there is no possibility to supply this custom LongParser to the SortField.
> I propose a change in the sort classes:
> Include a pointer to the parser instance to be used in SortField (if not given use the default). My idea is to create a SortField using a new constructor
> {code}SortField(String field, int type, Object parser, boolean reverse){code}
> The parser is "object" because all current parsers have no super-interface. The ideal solution would be to have:
> {code}SortField(String field, int type, FieldCache.Parser parser, boolean reverse){code}
> and FieldCache.Parser is a super-interface (just empty, more like a marker-interface) of all other parsers (like LongParser...). The sort implementation then must be changed to respect the given parser (if not NULL), else use the default FieldCache.getXXXX without parser.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org