[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2976?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13171310#comment-13171310
]
Hoss Man commented on SOLR-2976:
--------------------------------
Seriously guys: start a new fucking issue if you care so much, and debate the
optimal API/docs/sample configs for precisionStep there.
whether a new symbolic constant is added really has *ZERO* bearing on _this_
issue, which is about whether or not TrieField.isTokenized() is broken.
(this is what the "related issues" Jira link type is for)
> TrieField.isTokenized returns true regardless of precisionStep
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-2976
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2976
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.5
> Reporter: Hoss Man
>
> regardless of the precisionStep used, TrieField.isTokenized is hardcoded to
> return true -- so even if a user has something like this in their schema...
> {code}
> <fieldType name="long" class="solr.TrieLongField" precisionStep="0"
> omitNorms="true" />
> <field name="ts" type="long" indexed="true" stored="true" required="true"
> multiValued="false" />
> {code}
> ...any code paths that are driven by isTokenized will think their may be
> multiple terms per document when in reality there is at most one.
> we should consider redefining TrieField.isTokenized to be something like...
> {code}
> @Override
> public boolean isTokenized() {
> return Integer.MAX_VALUE != precisionStep;
> }
> {code}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
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]
