[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16857035#comment-16857035
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-8362:
--------------------------------------
This looks good in general, some minor comments:
- tests should use IndexSearcher#count instead of computing top docs just to
get the count?
- BinaryRangeDocValues doesn't need to be public?
- isCacheable could return {{DocValues.isCacheable(ctx, field);}} instead of
false
> 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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
