lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4369) StringFields name is unintuitive and not helpful
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:12:07 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4369:

The names "ExactMatchField" or "MatchOnlyField" both have the problem, that they only refer
to the indexing side.

I dont know, I actually like ExactMatchField the best because it specifies exactly what I
want it to specify.

MatchOnly is not as good because you can actually do things like sort (the javadocs mention
this as one reason
you would use this field type), but ExactMatch just refers to the search behavior,
which is what I am really concerned about. It doesn't imply you cannot store it, it just tells
you how the search
behavior behaves.

> StringFields name is unintuitive and not helpful
> ------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4369
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4369.patch
> There's a huge difference between TextField and StringField, StringField screws up scoring
and bypasses your Analyzer.
> (see java-user thread "Custom Analyzer Not Called When Indexing" as an example.)
> The name we use here is vital, otherwise people will get bad results.
> I think we should rename StringField to MatchOnlyField.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

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

View raw message