Phew, thanks for bringing closure!
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Konstantyn Smirnov wrote:
> Ah yes, my bad!
>
> I indeed used my own fieldTypes for my numeric fields.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.c
Ah yes, my bad!
I indeed used my own fieldTypes for my numeric fields.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Lucene-4-1-IntField-cannot-be-found-by-a-NumericRangeFilter-NumericRangeQuery-tp4044544p4044670.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archiv
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Konstantyn Smirnov wrote:
> changing FT to indexed=true did the trick, thanks
>
> Shouldn't it be enabled by default?
It should be, and I think it is, so now I'm confused/worried why you
see it not enabled for indexing by default.
This is how IntField inits its T
changing FT to indexed=true did the trick, thanks
Shouldn't it be enabled by default?
If I invert a field using one of numeric classes, I'd expect it to be
indexed.
Otherwise I would use a StringField or StoredField...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Lucene
4, 2013 5:09 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene 4.1: IntField cannot be found by a
> NumericRangeFilter/NumericRangeQuery
>
> Hi guys,
>
> On my path of migrating from 3.6.x to 4.1, I'm facing the following problem:
>
> I create a document
Hi guys,
On my path of migrating from 3.6.x to 4.1, I'm facing the following problem:
I create a document with an IntField in it:
doc.add new IntField( 'freeSeats', 5, Store.YES )
After adding to the doc and writing to the index, the field looks like
(copied from eclipse debugger):
[20]Int
