[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2529?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12918012#action_12918012
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-2529:
--------------------------------------
I sympathize with your point of view Rob; arguably a position of < 0 is
illogical and an error. If the current behavior should stay then we can at
least put a comment in the code here acknowledging the illogical nature of it.
How do you feel about committing my latest patch, with the addition of a
suitable comment just mentioned?
> 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]
