[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16855465#comment-16855465 ]
Atri Sharma commented on LUCENE-8362: ------------------------------------- [~jpountz] Thanks, attached is an updated patch. Subclasses of BinaryRangeFieldRangeQuery do call super.rewrite. Did I miss a point here? [^LUCENE-8362.patch] > Add DocValue support for RangeFields > ------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-8362 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8362 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Nicholas Knize > Priority: Minor > Attachments: LUCENE-8362-approach2.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch, > LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch > > > I'm opening this issue to discuss adding DocValue support to > {{\{Int|Long|Float|Double\}Range}} field types. Since existing numeric range > fields already provide the methods for encoding ranges as a byte array I > think this could be as simple as adding syntactic sugar to existing range > fields that simply build an instance of {{BinaryDocValues}} using that same > encoding. I'm envisioning something like > {{doc.add(IntRange.newDocValuesField("intDV", 100)}} But I'd like to solicit > other ideas or potential drawbacks to this approach. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org