lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Grigorov (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8362) Add DocValue support for RangeFields
Date Thu, 30 May 2019 08:22:00 GMT


Martin Grigorov commented on LUCENE-8362:

[~atris] Off Topic: Why do you prefer working with patches ? It would be much more convenient
to comment on your changes in GitHub Pull Request UI.
One reason I can think of is if you don't have an account at GitHub and you don't want to
create one.
Patches are fine! But with a PR I think more people may join the review.

> 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