lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1768) NumericRange support for new query parser
Date Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:21:14 GMT


Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1768:

I would propose to absorb the RangeTools/Utils and DateTools/Utils (ehat is the correct name???)
in one configuration class (just a bigger enumeration with a good name, not *Utils/*.Tools.
e.g. RangeQueryDataType). By that you can define simply the type of a range query: term, numeric-int,
numeric-float, numeric-double, date-precision-xxx,... Based on this enumeration, the upper/lower
terms are parsed differently and different query objects are created. We just need to list
all possible combinations of data types, the user could create: We could make this class extensible,
if it is a Lucene Parameter class also supporting the parsing and building: One could simply
create a new constant for his specific range type and supply methods to parse and build the
query in the constant's implementation (so each constant contains also code to parse/build).
I am not sure how to do this with the new parser. I think of the same like the MTQRewriteMethod
(final static singletons in MTQ that do the rewrite and can be passed as parameter).

Maybe we can use this also to upgrade the old query parser if it gets not deprecated.

bq. I think it's already happening with the "old" QP. It used to output RangeQuery objects
and now it outputs TermRangeQuery objects. How is it going to be handled buy users expecting
RangeQuery objects?

I was thinking about that, too. But here the API clearly defines, that getRangeQuery() returns
a Query object without further specification. So the change was correct from the API/BW side.
The change that another object is returned is documented in CHANGES.txt (as far as I know).
We have here the same problem: You change the inner class implementations, but the abstract
QueryParser's API is stable. The general contract when doing such things is, that you use
instanceof checks before you try to cast some abstract return type to something specific,
not documented.

You have the same in various factories also in the very bw-oriented JDK: XML factories create
things like SAXParser and so on. If you cast the returned objects to some special implementation
class, its your problem, because you remove the abstraction and work with implementations.
This happened e.g. from the change between Java 1.4 to 1.5, when the internal SAX parsers
were exchanged and their class names changed. A lot of programs broke by that, because the
developers casted the objects returned from factories without instanceof checks.

> NumericRange support for new query parser
> -----------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-1768
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: QueryParser
>    Affects Versions: 2.9
>            Reporter: Uwe Schindler
>            Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>             Fix For: 2.9
> It would be good to specify some type of "schema" for the query parser in future, to
automatically create NumericRangeQuery for different numeric types? It would then be possible
to index a numeric value (double,float,long,int) using NumericField and then the query parser
knows, which type of field this is and so it correctly creates a NumericRangeQuery for strings
like "[1.567..*]" or "(1.787..19.5]".
> There is currently no way to extract if a field is numeric from the index, so the user
will have to configure the FieldConfig objects in the ConfigHandler. But if this is done,
it will not be that difficult to implement the rest.
> The only difference between the current handling of RangeQuery is then the instantiation
of the correct Query type and conversion of the entered numeric values (simple Number.valueOf(...)
cast of the user entered numbers). Evenerything else is identical, NumericRangeQuery also
supports the MTQ rewrite modes (as it is a MTQ).
> Another thing is a change in Date semantics. There are some strange flags in the current
parser that tells it how to handle dates.

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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message