lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3187) Store NumericField precisionStep in fnx file
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:40:59 GMT


Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-3187:

Robert commented on LUCENE-3186:

do we really need to do this? I guess also looking at LUCENE-3187, I think I'm against this

Shall we put analyzer classnames in there too? If we are going to put docvalues type and precision
step, well then i want the stopwords file in the fnx file too!

At some point, if a user is going to shoot themselves in the foot, we simply cannot stop them,
and I don't think its our job to.

I am also not really happy with this trend. I just opened LUCENE-3187 to start a discussion.
In my opinion we should improve documentation instead.

> Store NumericField precisionStep in fnx file
> --------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-3187
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/index
>    Affects Versions: 2.9, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2
>            Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> This is a similar problem like LUCENE-3186:
> The following question was sent to user list: []
> The main problem is that you have to pass the precision step and must knwo the field
type of numeric fields before doing a query, else you get wrong results. We can maybe store
the type and precision step in fnx file (like we do for stored numeric fields in FieldsWriter).
> I am not sure whats the best way to do it (without too much code specialization), but
it seems a good idea. On the other hand, we don't store references to the Analyzer in the
fnx file, so why for numeric field (it's just like an analyzer - if you change it, results
are wrong)?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see:

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

View raw message