[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1768?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13080359#comment-13080359
]
Vinicius Barros commented on LUCENE-1768:
-----------------------------------------
I also started working on applying the numeric support to 3x. However I am not
sure about backwards compatibility there.
The problem is that in trunk I had renamed RangeQueryNode to
TermRangeQueryNode. Also, TermRangeQueryNode no longer extends
ParametricRangeQueryNode, it now extends AbstractRangeQueryNode. Because of
that, ParametricRangeQueryNodeProcessor returns a TermRangeQueryNode instead of
RangeQueryNode. As you can see, many things the user might expect to still work
the same is working completely different. I see some classes in Lucene use
Version, but I don't know exactly how that works and why standard query parser
do not use it. Should it?
Not sure how I should proceed now. Should I ignore the backward compatibility
and go ahead and change how everything behaves or try to make everything
backward compatible (not sure how I could do that without the use of Version).
Do you have any comments on that Uwe?
> NumericRange support for new query parser
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1768
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1768
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: core/queryparser
> Affects Versions: 2.9
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Labels: contrib, gsoc, gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11, mentor
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: TestNumericQueryParser-fix.patch,
> TestNumericQueryParser-fix.patch, TestNumericQueryParser-fix.patch,
> TestNumericQueryParser-fix.patch, week-7.patch, week-8.patch, week1.patch,
> week2.patch, week3.patch, week4.patch, week5-6.patch
>
>
> It would be good to specify some type of "schema" for the query parser in
> future, to automatically create NumericRangeQuery for different numeric
> types? It would then be possible to index a numeric value
> (double,float,long,int) using NumericField and then the query parser knows,
> which type of field this is and so it correctly creates a NumericRangeQuery
> for strings like "[1.567..*]" or "(1.787..19.5]".
> There is currently no way to extract if a field is numeric from the index, so
> the user will have to configure the FieldConfig objects in the ConfigHandler.
> But if this is done, it will not be that difficult to implement the rest.
> The only difference between the current handling of RangeQuery is then the
> instantiation of the correct Query type and conversion of the entered numeric
> values (simple Number.valueOf(...) cast of the user entered numbers).
> Evenerything else is identical, NumericRangeQuery also supports the MTQ
> rewrite modes (as it is a MTQ).
> Another thing is a change in Date semantics. There are some strange flags in
> the current parser that tells it how to handle dates.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
