In current flex, the TermsEnum has a method called getComparator() that returns 
the comparator used in this TermsEnum. This is the reason behind it. If we 
change this to only support natural byte[] ordering (of course unsigned, die, 
die Java's signedness of byte!), and codecs should not support other ordering 
in future (In my opinion this would break most MTQs depending on the order like 
range, fuzzy, wildcard,*), its obsolete.

But with current code the BoundedTreeSet should take the comparator provided by 
the TermsEnum.

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [email protected]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yonik
> Seeley
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:56 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: BytesRef comparable
> 
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Michael McCandless
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The problem is BytesRef is not really a concrete object.  It can't
> > know how the terms it's representing are supposed to sort.
> > Yet nearly all the time this sort will be lucene's default term sort
> > (only custom codecs can change this), so I'm +1 on making BytesRef
> > sort according to that (note that this is not actually natural byte[]
> > order, because we must interp the UTF8 bytes as unsigned to sort in
> > unicode code point order).
> 
> I thought we were going to be changing lucene's index order to the
> natural byte order (same as the unicode code point order)?
> 
> Solr's BoundedTreeSet doesn't take a comparator.  I could change it so
> that it could of course... but it just seemed natural to "fix"
> BytesRef.
> 
> -Yonik
> Apache Lucene Eurocon 2010
> 18-21 May 2010 | Prague
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to