asfimport
commented
13 years ago Uwe Schindler (@uschindler) (migrated from JIRA)
Robert commented on #4259:
do we really need to do this? I guess also looking at LUCENE-3187, I think I'm against this trend.
Shall we put analyzer classnames in there too? If we are going to put docvalues type and precision step, well then i want the stopwords file in the fnx file too!
At some point, if a user is going to shoot themselves in the foot, we simply cannot stop them, and I don't think its our job to.
I am also not really happy with this trend. I just opened LUCENE-3187 to start a discussion. In my opinion we should improve documentation instead.
This is a similar problem like #4259:
The following question was sent to user list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/201106.mbox/%3C614C529D389A5944B351F7DFB7594F24012AA214@uksrpblkexb01.detica.com%3E
The main problem is that you have to pass the precision step and must knwo the field type of numeric fields before doing a query, else you get wrong results. We can maybe store the type and precision step in fnx file (like we do for stored numeric fields in FieldsWriter).
I am not sure whats the best way to do it (without too much code specialization), but it seems a good idea. On the other hand, we don't store references to the Analyzer in the fnx file, so why for numeric field (it's just like an analyzer - if you change it, results are wrong)?
Migrated from LUCENE-3187 by Uwe Schindler (@uschindler)