[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1255?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12583797#action_12583797
]
Doug Cutting commented on LUCENE-1255:
--------------------------------------
Since the increment is relative to the prior token, it should make no
difference when there is no prior token. So shouldn't the first token be at
position=0 no matter what its increment?
> CheckIndex should allow term position = -1
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1255
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1255
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.4
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.3.2, 2.4
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1255.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from this discussion:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200803.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> Right now CheckIndex claims the index is corrupt if you index a Token with -1
> position, which happens if your first token has positionIncrementGap set to 0.
> But, as far as I can tell, Lucene doesn't "mind" when this happens.
> So I plan to fix CheckIndex to allow this case. I'll backport to 2.3.2 as
> well.
> LUCENE-1253 is one example where Lucene's core analyzers could do this.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
