[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2529?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12917796#action_12917796
 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2529:
-------------------------------------

bq. but it honors the first position increment, expecting it to be >= 1. If 
it's 0, then the fieldState.position would end up being -1 but there's a quick 
check here that will correct it to be 0.

Thank you... in my opinion here though (the zero case), we should just throw a 
hard Exception! 

Because if the first token in a field has posIncrement = 0, this is meaningless,
it means it has some negative position (it is floating around in the gap or 
before the field at all)

Personally I would prefer if any of the code inside lucene does something this 
stupid, that we
get a hard test fail rather than a cover-up!


> always apply position increment gap between values
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2529
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2529
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Index
>    Affects Versions: 2.9.3, 3.0.2, 3.1, 4.0
>         Environment: (I don't know which version to say this affects since 
> it's some quasi trunk release and the new versioning scheme confuses me.)
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Assignee: Koji Sekiguchi
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.1, 4.0
>
>         Attachments: 
> LUCENE-2529_always_apply_position_increment_gap_between_values.patch, 
> LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch, 
> LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch, 
> LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch, LUCENE-2529_test.patch
>
>   Original Estimate: 1h
>  Remaining Estimate: 1h
>
> I'm doing some fancy stuff with span queries that is very sensitive to term 
> positions.  I discovered that the position increment gap on indexing is only 
> applied between values when there are existing terms indexed for the 
> document.  I suspect this logic wasn't deliberate, it's just how its always 
> been for no particular reason.  I think it should always apply the gap 
> between fields.  Reference DocInverterPerField.java line 82:
> if (fieldState.length > 0)
>           fieldState.position += 
> docState.analyzer.getPositionIncrementGap(fieldInfo.name);
> This is checking fieldState.length.  I think the condition should simply be:  
> if (i > 0).
> I don't think this change will affect anyone at all but it will certainly 
> help me.  Presently, I can either change this line in Lucene, or I can put in 
> a hack so that the first value for the document is some dummy value which is 
> wasteful.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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

Reply via email to