[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1768?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13082128#comment-13082128
]
Vinicius Barros commented on LUCENE-1768:
-----------------------------------------
Hi Uwe and Adriano,
Thanks for the comments.
I have been trying to follow Adriano's instructions to avoid major changes to
API and behavior. However, ParametricRangeQueryNode and AbstractRangeQueryNode
do not share the same methods (as Adriano said above). ParametricRangeQueryNode
has lower and upper bound, which are ParametricQueryNodes, and these last ones
hold the inclusive/exclusive information (they use CompareOperator for that).
AbtractRangeQueryNode have lower and upper bounds (these ones defined by the
template, so it could be a ParametricQueryNode, which is compatible with
ParametricRangeQueryNode), however it holds the inclusive/exclusive information
differently, through isLowerInclusive and isUpperInclusive methods.
I just don't understand why ParametricQueryNode hold this CompareOperator
value, I think this should be part of the ParametricRangeQueryNode and
ParametricQueryNode should only be a simple value (FieldQueryNode). Any
suggestions here?
> 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]
