lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: Payloads and TrieRangeQuery
Date Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:32:27 GMT
I think we'd need richer communication between MTQ and its subclasses,
so that eg your enum would return a Query instead of a Term?

Then you'd either return a TermQuery, or, a BooleanQuery that's
filtering the TermQuery?

But yes, doing after 3.0 seems good!


On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Uwe Schindler<> wrote:
>> I would like to go forward with moving the classes into the right packages
>> and optimize the way, how queries and analyzers are created (only one
>> class
>> for each). The idea from LUCENE-1673 to use static factories to create
>> these
>> classes for the different data types seems to be more elegant and simplier
>> to maintain than the current way (having a class for each bit size).
>> So I think I will start with 1673 and try to present something useable,
>> soon
>> (but without payloads, so the payload/position-bits setting is "0").
> Another question not so simple to answer: When embedding these TermPositions
> into the whole process, how would this work with MultiTermQuery? The current
> algorithm is simple: The TrieRangeTermEnum simply enumerates the possible
> terms from the index and MTQ creates the BitSet or a BooleanQuery of
> TermQueries. How to do this with positions? In both cases there need
> specialities (the TermEnum must return that the actual term is a
> payload/position one and must filter using TermPositions). For the filter
> its then easy, the TermQueries added to BooleanQuery in the other case must
> also use the payloads. Questions & more questions.
> I tend to release TrieRange with 2.9 without Positions/Payloads.
> Uwe
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message