lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: sorting tokenized field
Date Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:01:43 GMT
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.


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

View raw message