lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley" <>
Subject Re: Strange behavior of positionIncrementGap
Date Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:08:59 GMT
On 8/11/06, Chuck Williams <> wrote:
> 1) a b C D ...results in:  _gap_ _gap_ C _gap_ D
> 2) a B C D ...results in:  _gap_ B _gap_ C _gap_ D
> 3) A b c D ...results in:  A _gap_ _gap_ _gap_ D
> This seems a natural behavior and is consistent with the use cases you
> describe (which are essentially the same reason I'm using gaps, and
> presumably the main purpose of gaps).
> Hoss, do you think it would be ok to fix given the potential upward
> incompatibility for index-format-dependent implementaitons?

The proposed behavior seems fine to me...
Is there any incompatibility other than the position gaps changing in
the presence of fields empty after analysis?


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

View raw message