lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Atri Sharma (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8362) Add DocValue support for RangeFields
Date Tue, 28 May 2019 09:00:00 GMT


Atri Sharma commented on LUCENE-8362:

[~jpountz] Thanks for your comments.


I wanted to check with you on the best way to define the scorer for BinaryRangeFieldRangeQuery.
Essentially, given the input BinaryRangeDocValues field and the range defined for a BinaryRangeFieldRangeQuery,
should we return a ConstantScoreScorer which wraps an underlying TwoPhaseIterator, where the
iterator's matches() method checks if the input field's min and max arrays exactly match the
query's min and max arrays?

> Add DocValue support for RangeFields 
> -------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-8362
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-8362-approach2.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch
> I'm opening this issue to discuss adding DocValue support to {{\{Int|Long|Float|Double\}Range}}
field types. Since existing numeric range fields already provide the methods for encoding
ranges as a byte array I think this could be as simple as adding syntactic sugar to existing
range fields that simply build an instance of {{BinaryDocValues}} using that same encoding.
I'm envisioning something like {{doc.add(IntRange.newDocValuesField("intDV", 100)}} But I'd
like to solicit other ideas or potential drawbacks to this approach.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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

View raw message