lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>
Subject Re: inconsistency/performance trap of empty terms
Date Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:54:51 GMT
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 18:49, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>> In my opinion, we should not have analyzers at all (just my personal opinion).
"new Field(name, TokenStream)" is much enough from consistency standpoint!
>>
>> Indeed, my friend!
>>
>
> i agree (for the indexer), but a lot of people like to use the
> QueryParser.... so we need a "tokenstream-factory" of some sort
> (Analyzer today).

If it's only for the QP, a simple method that one could override would suffice:
QueryParser.getTokenStream(String field, String value)

If it's not just for the QP, then we have Analyzer (as you've pointed out).

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message