[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1279?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12644492#action_12644492
]
Steven Rowe commented on LUCENE-1279:
-------------------------------------
Hoss wrote:
bq. 4) when i first saw the thread that spawned this issue, my first reaction
was to wonder if it would make sense to start allowing a Collator to be
specified when indexing, and to use the raw bytes from the CollationKey as the
indexed value - I haven't thought it through very hard, but i wonder if that
would be feasible (it seems like it would certainly faster at query time, since
it would allow more traditional term skipping.
See LUCENE-1435, which is an implementation of this idea.
> 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
> Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.4
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1279.patch, LUCENE-1279.patch, LUCENE-1279.patch,
> 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]
