Thanks ! If I use Yonik's approach, do I need to index the terms in a special way?
Shai On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > Hi Shai, > > In 2.9.1, the approach using upper/lower bound identical and included is > the > official supported usage. The Query is optimized to rewrite efficient in > this case (constant score term query). > > But you can also use a TermQuery like Yonik suggested and converting the > numbers yourself. > > You will never hit any false terms, as the encoding clearly differentiate > between precisions. > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shai Erera [mailto:ser...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:55 PM > > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Equality Numeric Query > > > > Hi > > > > I index documents with numeric fields using the new Numeric package. I > > execute two types of queries: range queries (for example, [1 TO 20}) and > > equality queries (for example 24.75). Don't mind the syntax. > > > > Currently, to execute the equality query, I create a NumericRangeQuery > > with > > the lower/upper value being 24.75 and both limits are set to inclusive. > > Two > > questions: > > 1) Is there a better approach? For example, if I had indexed the values > as > > separate terms, I could create a TermQuery. > > 2) Can I run into precision issues such that 24.751 will be matched as > > well? > > > > Shai > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
