lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Hostetter <>
Subject Re: Strange behavior of positionIncrementGap
Date Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:40:07 GMT

: > 3) A _gap_ b _gap_ c _gap_ D ...results in:  A _double_gap_ D
: >
: > that the behavior you are seeing?
: >
: Almost.  The only difference is that case 3 has 3 gaps, so it's A
: _triple_gap_ D.

sorry ... brain fart on my part.

: 1.  My bulk update code was always generating the positionIncrementGap
: between all field values, so if there are 4 values it would always
: generate 3 gaps independent of whether or not the values generate

: This seems a natural behavior and is consistent with the use cases you
: describe (which are essentially the same reason I'm using gaps, and
: presumably the main purpose of gaps).

: Hoss, do you think it would be ok to fix given the potential upward
: incompatibility for index-format-dependent implementaitons?

it certainly seems like the "right thing to do" to me... i can't think of
any cases situations in which clients would be relying on the current

Does anyone else see any reason why the current behavior is usefull?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message