[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5069?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13688393#comment-13688393
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-5069:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
I had the same in mind, but lots of people were against for schema reasons
(you know, no schema info in index). If we save precision step we should also
save type like we do for stored fields.
{quote}
Count me as one of those: I'm worried how the issue has already jumped to this.
> Can/should we store NumericField's precisionStep in the index?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5069
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5069
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
>
> I was just helping a user (buzzkills) on IRC on why NumericRangeQuery was
> failing to hit the expected docs ... and it was because s/he had indexed with
> precStep=4 but searched with precStep=1.
> Then we wondered if it'd be possible to somehow catch this, e.g. we could
> maybe store precStep in FieldInfo, and then fail at search time if you use a
> "non-matching" precStep?
> I think you can index fine and then search on a multiple of that? E.g., I
> can index with precStep=2 but search with precStep=8? But indexing with
> precStep=4 and searching precStep=1 won't work ...
--
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]
