[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2529?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-2529:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-2529_nonsenseIncrements.patch
attached is a patch for BaseTokenStreamTestCase that tests if the first value
has a posInc=0 (nonsensical position increment).
The synonymfilter from solr fails with the test, but I don't really care...
there is no point in indexing your text if you are going to put useless values
in the index... I still think we should throw hard exception here.
> always apply position increment gap between values
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2529
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2529
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.9.3, 3.0.2, 3.1, 4.0
> 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
> Assignee: Koji Sekiguchi
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.1, 4.0
>
> Attachments:
> LUCENE-2529_always_apply_position_increment_gap_between_values.patch,
> LUCENE-2529_nonsenseIncrements.patch,
> LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch,
> LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch,
> LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch, LUCENE-2529_test.patch
>
> 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]
