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
The field is not indexed (see the debug output, it says indexed = false).
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantyn Smirnov [mailto:inject...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 5:
