[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8349?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16503662#comment-16503662
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-8349:
--------------------------------------
[~rcmuir] do you have a comment on the highlight by field then doc vs doc then
field? I believe you chose this arrangement in the PostingsHighlighter (the
ancestor of the UH) and AFAICT this is optimized for offsets in postings. I'm
not sure how much it matters. And I'm surprised Matches API would have any
impact on the distinction (as Alan implies it would) but I haven't looked
closely at this patch yet to see.
I'll look at your PR Alan. This is lighting a fire under my but to continue
LUCENE-8286 -- battle of the highlighters ;-)
> Highlighter based on Matches API
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8349
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8349
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Alan Woodward
> Assignee: Alan Woodward
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I started trying to integrate the Matches API into the UnifiedHighlighter,
> but there's a fairly heavy impedance mismatch between the way the two of them
> work (eg Matches doesn't give you freqs, it's entirely lazy, the UH tries to
> do things by field rather than by doc). So instead, I thought I'd try and
> write a new highlighter based around Matches, and see what it looks like.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
