[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4685?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13553773#comment-13553773
]
Rob Audenaerde edited comment on LUCENE-4685 at 1/15/13 1:07 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It seems the tokenized vs. non tokenized is not stored in the
Lucene40StoredFieldsWriter (and therefore cannot be used in the
Lucene40StoredFieldReader). Maybe the bits can be used to determine just that?
(it seems there is room left?)
was (Author: robau):
Is seems the tokenized vs. non tokenized is not stored in the
Lucene40StoredFieldsWriter (and therefore cannot be used in the
Lucene40StoredFieldReader). Maybe the bits can be used to determine just that?
(is seems there is room left?)
> IndexedField (is StringField) set to tokenized when getting the Document
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4685
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4685
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/index
> Affects Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: Rob Audenaerde
> Attachments: TestLuceneTokenizedFieldDocument.java
>
>
> I have added a Document with StringField to the index. When I search for it,
> I retrieve the Document from the searcher and iterate the IndexedFields. The
> field I have added is reported to be a 'tokenized' field.
> This should not be the case, as it is a StringField and these are not
> tokenized.
> It is very unconvenient when updating a Document with an extra field. The
> original fields are all set to tokenized.
> I will add a TestCase that shows the unwanted behaviour
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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]
