[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6975?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15110322#comment-15110322
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-6975:
-------------------------------------
Well I agree we need to make the 1D case simpler. I'm not sure if separate
classes really does that, or if we just have to improve the apis of what we
have. I think we have a couple of choices.
For sure though, Point is better than Dimensional. I do think we should make
the additional tweak here, of "escape from Field", meaning PointLatLonField ->
LatLonPoint and so on. It can be a followup though.
> Add dimensional "equals" query to match docs containing precisely a given
> value
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6975
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6975
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: Trunk, 6.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-6975.patch
>
>
> Today, you can make a dimensional range query using e.g.
> {{DimensionalRangeQuery.new1DIntRange}}, etc., plus a direct ctor for
> "expert" (2D, 3D, etc.) usages, but matching a single value is awkward and
> users ask about it from time to time.
> We could maybe rename {{DimensionalRangeQuery}} to {{DimensionalQuery}} and
> add new "factories" like {{newIntEqualsQuery}} or something.
> Or, we could make new classes, {{DimensionalIntEqualsQuery}} etc., and you
> get to use ordinary constructors?
> Or something else?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
