lucy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Thomas den Braber" <tho...@delos.nl>
Subject Re: [lucy-user] Indexing Lucy::Plan::Int32Type
Date Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:53:47 GMT
That is OK, I will use the leading zero's until the Integer support is ready.

Thanks for your help,

Thomas den Braber

-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
To: Thomas den Braber <thomas@delos.nl>
Cc: user@lucy.apache.org
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:39:30 -0800
Subject: Re: [lucy-user] Indexing Lucy::Plan::Int32Type

> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Thomas den Braber <thomas@delos.nl> wrote:
> 
> >> Ah.  You might be able to work around that by supplying values like so:
> >>
> >>     my $range_query = Lucy::Search::RangeQuery->new(
> >>         field      => 'product_number',
> >>         lower_term => Lucy::Object::Integer32->new(value => 3),
> >>     );
> >
> > I got an error when doing so:
> >
> > Invalid parameter: 'value'\n\tcfish_XSBind_allot_params at xs\\XSBind.c line
> > 507\n\tXS_Lucy_Object_Obj_new at lib\\\\Lucy.xs line 343
> >
> > I am using version 0.3.3
> 
> OK, it looks like that workaround is only feasible with the current master
> branch, not 0.3.x.  (Using `Clownfish::Integer32` instead of
> `Lucy::Object::Integer32`.)
> 
> That being the case, does the leading-zeroes technique work for you?  It's
> probably better anyway because it doesn't depend on non-public API features.
> 
> Marvin Humphrey



Mime
View raw message