lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Praveen Peddi" <ppe...@contextmedia.com>
Subject Re: sorting tokenized field
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:01:40 GMT
Hi Erik,
Thanks a lot for your kind response. I appreciate the details.

What I meant by custom library is, applying aviran's patch to the lucene and 
maintaining it, not adding an extra field. Adding an extra field was my last 
option if I can't use the patch.

I did look at the extensible search and infact I wrote my own comparators 
(IgnoreCaseStringComparator and another custom comparator) and they work 
just fine. But I am not sure if this extensible search features helps me in 
sorting on tokenized field w/o adding the extra field. For now, I will just 
go for the extra field option and later if a more optimized solution is 
built into lucene I can use that.

Praveen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Hatcher" <erik@ehatchersolutions.com>
To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: sorting tokenized field


> On Dec 13, 2004, at 2:22 PM, Praveen Peddi wrote:
>> If its not added to the release code already, is there any reason for it 
>> being not added.
>
> As noted, there is a performance issue with sorting by tokenized fields. 
> It would seem far more advisable for you to simply add another field used 
> for sorting which is untokenized.
>
> Why has it not been added?  There have been several committers quite 
> active in the codebase (myself excluded).  If you wish for changes to be 
> committed, perseverance and patience are key.  Keep lobbying, but do so 
> kindly.  When there are viable alternatives (such as adding an untokenized 
> field for sorting) then certainly there is less incentive to commit 
> changes.  Lucene's codebase is pretty clean and tight - it is wise for us 
> to be very selective about changes to it.
>
>
>>  Seems like many people agree that this is an important functionality of 
>> sorting.
>
> Many do, but not all.  I'm -0 on this change, meaning I'm not veto'ing it, 
> but I'm not actually for it given the performance issue.
>
>> Its just that I can't get permission to use customized libraries in our 
>> company.
>
> No custom library is needed for you to add an untokenized field for 
> sorting purposes.
>
> Also, sorting is extensible.  Check out the Lucene in Action code, 
> specifically the lia.extsearch.sorting.DistanceSortingTest class.
>
> Maybe you could add your own custom sorting code that could do what you 
> want without patching Lucene.
>
>> Is there any possibility this patch contributed by Aviran can be added to 
>> the actual release branch.
>
> Keep lobbying - other committers may feel differently than I do about it 
> and add it.
>
> Erik
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message