lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: arbitrary sorting
Date Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:38:53 GMT
Thanks for applying that patch, Otis (oh, and making more work for me 
writing about it! :)  I had intended to get to this eventually.

This is indeed a great patch!


On Jan 29, 2004, at 6:10 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

> This really was a half-a-line fix to the score method. :)
> I'll check in the code after I rename it as Doug had suggested in his
> email below.
> Tim - thanks for the elegant contribution.  Do you think you'll be able
> to add support for sorting on Float and String fields in the near
> future?
> Otis
> --- Doug Cutting <> wrote:
>> Tim Jones wrote:
>>> Does anyone have any feedback after looking at the code I submitted
>> for
>>> sorting results?  Doug and Erik - do you see this as a good way to
>> go, or do
>>> you have other ideas in mind?  For example, what about creating a
>> special
>>> kind of "SortingField"?
>> I like the implementation, requiring an indexed field, but
>> recommending
>> against storing or tokenizing.  Most other folks (including myself)
>> who've done this use a stored field and then iterate over documents
>> to
>> fill the cache.  Instead you're able to fill the cache with a
>> TermDocs,
>> which is much more efficient.  Good idea!
>> That said, I've not had a chance to test the code.  But if someone
>> tests
>> it, and it works well, I see no reason not to include it.
>> We might rename it something like IntegerSortedSearcher and also add
>> classes called FloatSortedSearcher, StringSortedSearcher, etc.  These
>> could all build on a base class, AbstractSortedSearcher.
>> Doug
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message