[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5605?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-5605:
----------------------------------
Description:
Currently in our Field API we use the FieldType class that contains the
information about data type and stuff like the numeric precisionStep.
Unfortunately in NumericRangeQuery/NumericRangeFilter, we still require the
precisionStep given in the query. For the user this is hard to understand,
leading to problems like passing a different precisionStep than the one which
was used for indexing. If we change that parameter in NRQ/NRF to take
FieldType, we can extract the precStep as an implementation detail. We just
have to check that the field type is a numeric one and is indexed. The user
cannot do anything wrong anymore, unless he creates a new, incompatible field
type.
was:
Currently in our Field API we use the FieldType class that contains the
information about data type and stuff like the numeric precisionStep.
Unfortunately in NumericRangeQuery/NumericRangeFilter, we still require the
precisionStep given in the query. For the user this is hard to understand,
leading to problems like passing a different precisionStep than the one which
was used for indexing. If we change that parameter in NRQ/NRF to take
FieldType, we can extract the precStep as an implementation detail. We just
have to check that the field type is a numeric one and is indexed. The use
cannot do anything wrong anymore, unless he creates a new, incompatible field
type.
> Don't pass precisionStep directly to NRQ/NRF. Instead pass the FieldType
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5605
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5605
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>
> Currently in our Field API we use the FieldType class that contains the
> information about data type and stuff like the numeric precisionStep.
> Unfortunately in NumericRangeQuery/NumericRangeFilter, we still require the
> precisionStep given in the query. For the user this is hard to understand,
> leading to problems like passing a different precisionStep than the one which
> was used for indexing. If we change that parameter in NRQ/NRF to take
> FieldType, we can extract the precStep as an implementation detail. We just
> have to check that the field type is a numeric one and is indexed. The user
> cannot do anything wrong anymore, unless he creates a new, incompatible field
> type.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
