lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1673) Move TrieRange to core
Date Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:31:07 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1673?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12720223#action_12720223
] 

Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1673:
--------------------------------------

bq. But we are already "baking in" the trie indexing format? That's what
"moving trie to core" implies. 

Nah - no more than the porter stemmer or any other type of analysis is "baked in".
I thought "move" meant "rename" (package and class name).  Upgrading it's stability and how
"core" it was.

bq. "hey how come I didn't get a NumericField back on my doc?

Perhaps a good reason to not add a NumericField.  It doesn't currently exist and is not necessary
for Trie.
Want a convenience method for the user?  TrieUtils.createDocumentField(...) , same as the
sortField currently works.

The current Trie behavior works the same way everything else does in Lucene... changing that
and encoding types into the index deserves it's own issue and discussion (and something big
like that doesn't seem to belong in 2.9 which is winding down).


> Move TrieRange to core
> ----------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1673
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1673
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.9
>            Reporter: Uwe Schindler
>            Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>             Fix For: 2.9
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1673.patch, LUCENE-1673.patch, LUCENE-1673.patch
>
>
> TrieRange was iterated many times and seems stable now (LUCENE-1470, LUCENE-1582, LUCENE-1602).
There is lots of user interest, Solr added it to its default FieldTypes (SOLR-940) and if
possible I want to move it to core before release of 2.9.
> Before this can be done, there are some things to think about:
> # There are now classes called LongTrieRangeQuery, IntTrieRangeQuery, how should they
be called in core? I would suggest to leave it as it is. On the other hand, if this keeps
our only numeric query implementation, we could call it LongRangeQuery, IntRangeQuery or NumericRangeQuery
(see below, here are problems). Same for the TokenStreams and Filters.
> # Maybe the pairs of classes for indexing and searching should be moved into one class:
NumericTokenStream, NumericRangeQuery, NumericRangeFilter. The problem here: ctors must be
able to pass int, long, double, float as range parameters. For the end user, mixing these
4 types in one class is hard to handle. If somebody forgets to add a L to a long, it suddenly
instantiates a int version of range query, hitting no results and so on. Same with other types.
Maybe accept java.lang.Number as parameter (because nullable for half-open bounds) and one
enum for the type.
> # TrieUtils move into o.a.l.util? or document or?
> # Move TokenStreams into o.a.l.analysis, ShiftAttribute into o.a.l.analysis.tokenattributes?
Somewhere else?
> # If we rename the classes, should Solr stay with Trie (because there are different impls)?
> # Maybe add a subclass of AbstractField, that automatically creates these TokenStreams
and omits norms/tf per default for easier addition to Document instances?

-- 
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


Mime
View raw message