[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8362) Add DocValue support for RangeFields

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8362) Add DocValue support for RangeFields

Michael Gibney (Jira)

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16855465#comment-16855465 ]

Atri Sharma commented on LUCENE-8362:
-------------------------------------

[~jpountz] Thanks, attached is an updated patch.

 

Subclasses of BinaryRangeFieldRangeQuery do call super.rewrite. Did I miss a point here?

 

[^LUCENE-8362.patch]

> Add DocValue support for RangeFields
> -------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-8362
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8362
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-8362-approach2.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch
>
>
> I'm opening this issue to discuss adding DocValue support to {{\{Int|Long|Float|Double\}Range}} field types. Since existing numeric range fields already provide the methods for encoding ranges as a byte array I think this could be as simple as adding syntactic sugar to existing range fields that simply build an instance of {{BinaryDocValues}} using that same encoding. I'm envisioning something like {{doc.add(IntRange.newDocValuesField("intDV", 100)}} But I'd like to solicit other ideas or potential drawbacks to this approach.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]