I am fine with it. Just wanted to point out that there's also MatchHighlighter... I know I am biased here because I wrote it but I've been using it a lot and it works like a charm. This one - while not properly documented - is fully functional.
Dawid On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 3:39 PM David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the UnifiedHighlighter should be the first highlighter that a new > user of Lucene should look at. The Lucene highlighter module overview.html > has merely a sentence about the entire package. It could list the > highlighters in order of recommendation, and then we update javadocs on our > highlighters to offer more comparative information. BTW, Solr has this > page comparing the highlighters, which have pros/cons that mostly match to > Lucene: > https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/query-guide/highlighting.html#choosing-a-highlighter > > FastVectorHighlighter has an alluring name. Gosh, sounds like a great > highlighter -- right? :-) I propose deprecating it for removal. We don't > have to be quick on its actual removal... let users express concerns. If > there's a lingering benefit to this highlighter, deprecation could > galvanize momentum to address those feature/improvement gaps to the > UnifiedHighlighter. > > The original Highlighter is called "Highlighter" because it came first, > and I suspect most Lucene users start there based on the name. I'm not > sure about deprecating it. But I would like to propose renaming it to > OriginalHighlighter for Lucene 11. WDYT? > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >
