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 11:50:09 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4369:

The problem with ExactMatch field is: If it is also stored, the name is misleasing again,
so KeywordField is better.

I dont understand how storing is related. storing is the same always.

If we would 100% differentiate between stored and indexed fields while indexing (requiring
that the field is also added 2 times, one time as indexed and one time as indexed), I would
be fine with "MatchOnlyField" and "StoredStringField".

In my opinion the only thing worse we could do to our .document API than StringField would
be to require the user to add the field twice.

> 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