[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3451?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14051953#comment-14051953
]
Yonik Seeley edited comment on LUCENE-3451 at 7/3/14 10:00 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
bq. But I am interested in hearing why it is believed that it is "working as
designed"
"Working as designed" means just that... not that it's optimal, but that it is
working the way the original author intended. FWIW, I was really only against
throwing an exception. I personally think it would be fine to insert \*:\* for
the user where appropriate.
bq. and whether there are really applications that would intentionally write a
list of negative clauses
Machine generated queries (including those from our own query parsers).
For example, (a -x) reduces to (-x) if "a" is a stopword. Inserting \*:\* when
a boolean query contains only negative clauses was vetoed in LUCENE-3460.
was (Author: [email protected]):
bq. But I am interested in hearing why it is believed that it is "working as
designed" and whether there are really applications that would intentionally
write a list of negative clauses
Machine generated queries (including those from our own query parsers).
For example, (a -x) reduces to (-x) if "a" is a stopword. Inserting \*:\* when
a boolean query contains only negative clauses was vetoed in LUCENE-3460.
> Remove special handling of pure negative Filters in BooleanFilter, disallow
> pure negative queries in BooleanQuery
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3451
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3451
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Fix For: 4.9, 5.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3451.patch, LUCENE-3451.patch, LUCENE-3451.patch,
> LUCENE-3451.patch, LUCENE-3451.patch
>
>
> We should at least in Lucene 4.0 remove the hack in BooleanFilter that allows
> pure negative Filter clauses. This is not supported by BooleanQuery and
> confuses users (I think that's the problem in LUCENE-3450).
> The hack is buggy, as it does not respect deleted documents and returns them
> in its DocIdSet.
> Also we should think about disallowing pure-negative Queries at all and throw
> UOE.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
