[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10011?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15833175#comment-15833175
]
Ishan Chattopadhyaya commented on SOLR-10011:
---------------------------------------------
bq. Kind of... Anyone using TrieFields.TrieTypes, TrieTypes.getType() or
TrieTypes.type will have their code failing. So I don't know if we consider
those kind of internal, or if we are OK with the change anyway since it's easy
to fix.
AFAIR, we've cared about such internal changes only on a best effort basis.
Since it should be fairly apparent to a developer as to why their plugin fails,
I suggest we go ahead with the refactoring even for 6x. But I shall defer to
your judgement. [~hossman], do you have any opinion?
> Refactor PointField & TrieField to share common code
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-10011
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10011
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Reporter: Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> Attachments: SOLR-10011.patch, SOLR-10011.patch, SOLR-10011.patch,
> SOLR-10011.patch
>
>
> We should eliminate PointTypes and TrieTypes enum to have a common enum for
> both. That would enable us to share a lot of code between the two field types.
> In the process, fix the bug:
> PointFields with indexed=false, docValues=true seem to be using
> (Int|Double|Float|Long)Point.newRangeQuery() for performing exact matches and
> range queries. However, they should instead be using DocValues based range
> query.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
