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 2008/12/04 17:50:44 UTC
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1478) Missing possibility to supply custom
FieldParser when sorting search results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1478?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1478:
----------------------------------
Description:
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.
was:
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" bcause all 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.
> 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
>
> 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