lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris Male (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-2308) Separately specify a field's type
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:52:10 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13098957#comment-13098957
] 

Chris Male commented on LUCENE-2308:
------------------------------------

I will make the appropriate javadoc changes right now.

{quote}
Should we also move numeric(), numericDataType() and maybe
docValuesType() into oal.index.FieldType? (We can do this as a
speparate issue though).
{quote}

Yup.

{quote}
I also like Marvin's/Robert's suggestion of using int flags for all
these booleans (also a separate issue!).
{quote}

I like them too.  Lets do that.

{quote}
Maybe name oal.index's FT to IndexableFieldType? And then drop Core from
oal.document's? Ie, oal.document.FieldType and
oal.index.IndexableFieldType? (Aren't we going to shortly need
oal.index.StorableFieldType?).
{quote}

Good idea.  Its going to reduce this patch size considerably.

> Separately specify a field's type
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2308
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/index
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>              Labels: gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11, mentor
>             Fix For: 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2308-10.patch, LUCENE-2308-11.patch, LUCENE-2308-12.patch,
LUCENE-2308-13.patch, LUCENE-2308-14.patch, LUCENE-2308-15.patch, LUCENE-2308-16.patch, LUCENE-2308-17.patch,
LUCENE-2308-18.patch, LUCENE-2308-19.patch, LUCENE-2308-2.patch, LUCENE-2308-20.patch, LUCENE-2308-21.patch,
LUCENE-2308-3.patch, LUCENE-2308-4.patch, LUCENE-2308-5.patch, LUCENE-2308-6.patch, LUCENE-2308-7.patch,
LUCENE-2308-8.patch, LUCENE-2308-9.patch, LUCENE-2308-FT-interface.patch, LUCENE-2308-FT-interface.patch,
LUCENE-2308-branch.patch, LUCENE-2308-final.patch, LUCENE-2308-ltc.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-1.patch,
LUCENE-2308-merge-2.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-3.patch, LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs, LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs.moved,
LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch
>
>
> This came up from dicussions on IRC.  I'm summarizing here...
> Today when you make a Field to add to a document you can set things
> index or not, stored or not, analyzed or not, details like omitTfAP,
> omitNorms, index term vectors (separately controlling
> offsets/positions), etc.
> I think we should factor these out into a new class (FieldType?).
> Then you could re-use this FieldType instance across multiple fields.
> The Field instance would still hold the actual value.
> We could then do per-field analyzers by adding a setAnalyzer on the
> FieldType, instead of the separate PerFieldAnalzyerWrapper (likewise
> for per-field codecs (with flex), where we now have
> PerFieldCodecWrapper).
> This would NOT be a schema!  It's just refactoring what we already
> specify today.  EG it's not serialized into the index.
> This has been discussed before, and I know Michael Busch opened a more
> ambitious (I think?) issue.  I think this is a good first baby step.  We could
> consider a hierarchy of FIeldType (NumericFieldType, etc.) but maybe hold
> off on that for starters...

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message