[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2529?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12886986#action_12886986
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-2529:
--------------------------------------
How does this change backwards compatibility? The index format is certainly
the same. And there's no documented or implied contract I'm breaking with this
change in increment gap behavior. I'd be really surprised to learn that anyone
actually depends on the current behavior. When I went into the code I was
figuring it might smartly only apply the increment gap if the offset *changed*
from one value to another but it doesn't even do that, and so the current
algorithm strikes me as a bit arbitrary. Seems like a safe one-liner commit to
me. But then I'm biased as the reporter ;-)
> always apply position increment gap between values
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2529
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2529
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Environment: (I don't know which version to say this affects since
> it's some quasi trunk release and the new versioning scheme confuses me.)
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Fix For: 3.1, 4.0
>
> Original Estimate: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 1h
>
> I'm doing some fancy stuff with span queries that is very sensitive to term
> positions. I discovered that the position increment gap on indexing is only
> applied between values when there are existing terms indexed for the
> document. I suspect this logic wasn't deliberate, it's just how its always
> been for no particular reason. I think it should always apply the gap
> between fields. Reference DocInverterPerField.java line 82:
> if (fieldState.length > 0)
> fieldState.position +=
> docState.analyzer.getPositionIncrementGap(fieldInfo.name);
> This is checking fieldState.length. I think the condition should simply be:
> if (i > 0).
> I don't think this change will affect anyone at all but it will certainly
> help me. Presently, I can either change this line in Lucene, or I can put in
> a hack so that the first value for the document is some dummy value which is
> wasteful.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
