If its not added to the release code already, is there any reason for it being not added.
As noted, there is a performance issue with sorting by tokenized fields. It would seem far more advisable for you to simply add another field used for sorting which is untokenized.
Why has it not been added? There have been several committers quite active in the codebase (myself excluded). If you wish for changes to be committed, perseverance and patience are key. Keep lobbying, but do so kindly. When there are viable alternatives (such as adding an untokenized field for sorting) then certainly there is less incentive to commit changes. Lucene's codebase is pretty clean and tight - it is wise for us to be very selective about changes to it.
Seems like many people agree that this is an important functionality of sorting.
Many do, but not all. I'm -0 on this change, meaning I'm not veto'ing it, but I'm not actually for it given the performance issue.
Its just that I can't get permission to use customized libraries in our company.
No custom library is needed for you to add an untokenized field for sorting purposes.
Also, sorting is extensible. Check out the Lucene in Action code, specifically the lia.extsearch.sorting.DistanceSortingTest class.
Maybe you could add your own custom sorting code that could do what you want without patching Lucene.
Is there any possibility this patch contributed by Aviran can be added to the actual release branch.
Keep lobbying - other committers may feel differently than I do about it and add it.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
