[ 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: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org