[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3451?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14051980#comment-14051980
]
Jack Krupansky commented on LUCENE-3451:
----------------------------------------
[[email protected]] says:
bq. I personally think it would be fine to insert *:* for the user where
appropriate.
Ah! Since the "divorce" that gave Solr "custody" of its own copy of
QueryParserBase, this change could be made there, right? I can file a Solr Jira
for that (or just use one of the two open Solr issues related to pure-negative
sub-queries), unless you want to do it. And then if the Solr people are happy
over there, the Lucene guys can have their exception here and close this issue,
and the everybody can live happily ever after, right?
> 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]
