[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1279?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12595412#action_12595412
]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-1279:
----------------------------------
bq. I thought I did that
my bad. i missread.
bq. since the performance impact could be large compared to a standard
RangeQuery, I thought it made more sense to put it where it couldn't be used
accidentally
Hmmm... excellent point. you convinced me.
BTW: if hooks for CollatingRangeQuery are added to QueryParser, it shouldn't
use this class just because a Locale is specified -- that would cause some
unexpected results for people who have been specifying a Locale for date
reasons. a new "setter" would need to indicate when to pay attention to
Collation.
> RangeQuery and RangeFilter should use collation to check for range inclusion
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1279
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1279
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.3.1
> Reporter: Steven Rowe
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.4
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1279.patch
>
>
> See [this java-user
> discussion|http://www.nabble.com/lucene-farsi-problem-td16977096.html] of
> problems caused by Unicode code-point comparison, instead of collation, in
> RangeQuery.
> RangeQuery could take in a Locale via a setter, which could be used with a
> java.text.Collator and/or CollationKey's, to handle ranges for languages
> which have alphabet orderings different from those in Unicode.
--
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]
