Nadav Har'El wrote:
Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 28/05/2006 06:22:06 PM:
I have added http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/LucenePlanning
I think the suggestion for position-specific boost is not enough,
and what is really be needed is a more general "payload" mechanism,
that allows storing with each position a variable length payload
(byte[]) which the application can use for its purposes.
+1
I too have seen applications where this is required.
we better do this
after a bit of thought, and do it now - when it's natural to
start thinking about changes to the index file format.
That's precisely what this wiki page is for: planning these changes to
the API and index file format.
Another, related, improvement, I think, should be to make positions
optional for certain fields.
That's the intent. on
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/FlexibleIndexing
the [a,b,c,d] options are meant to be some different forms that postings
for a term could take, and the [1,2,3,4] are meant to be the flags that
one sets on a field to control the format of postings. Logically there
are thus 16 possible formats, but many of these don't make sense and
would thus not be implemented.
I think what you're proposing above is that we replace the positionBoost
flag with a positionPayload flag. Does that sound right?
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
