[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7039?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15157610#comment-15157610
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-7039:
---------------------------------------------------------
Commit 54a544b3075fe4a5a775d8774d0b462c5324b287 in lucene-solr's branch
refs/heads/master from [~rcmuir]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=54a544b ]
LUCENE-7039: Improve PointRangeQuery & co
> Improve PointRangeQuery & co
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7039
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7039
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-7039.patch, LUCENE-7039.patch
>
>
> The point types are now preferred for indexing numeric fields, but
> PointRangeQuery has some usability issues.
> I think we should make the following changes:
> * {{newIntRange()}}, {{newLongRange()}},
> {{newFloatRange()}},{{newDoubleRange()}}, {{newBinaryRange()}}: simple 1D
> ranges consistent with NumericRangeQuery naming.
> * {{newMultiIntRange()}}, {{newMultiLongRange()}}, {{newMultiFloatRange()}},
> {{newMultiDoubleRange()}}, {{newMultiBinaryRange()}}: multi-dimensional
> versions of the above (take arrays, a bit harder to use, but the arrays have
> correct type!)
> * {{toString()}} should be meaningful, it should not spew binary nonsense
> unless you used a binary range!
> * improve javadocs
> If we like this, we could do similar improvements for the ExactPointQuery
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
