Toph wrote:
Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
We could alternatively extend TokenStream so you could query it for
the final offset, then fix indexing to use that value instead of the
endOffset of the last token that it saw.
Querying the tokenstream for the final offset would good, but then
w
Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
>
>
> This would actually be a fairly large change: it's a change to the
> index format and all APIs that handle offsets during indexing &
> searching/retrieving.
>
>
For now I just changed the offset calculation in DocumentWriter as specified
here by the OP:
This would actually be a fairly large change: it's a change to the
index format and all APIs that handle offsets during indexing &
searching/retrieving.
We could alternatively extend TokenStream so you could query it for
the final offset, then fix indexing to use that value instead of the
Interesting discussion... glad I'm not the only one with this challenge.
Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
>
> EG, if you use Highlighter on a
> multi-valued field indexed with stored field & term vectors and say
> the first field ended with a stop word that was filtered out, then
> your offset
Well, first off, sometimes the thing being indexed isn't a string, so
you have no stringValue to get its length. It could be a Reader or a
TokenStream.
Second off, it's conceivable that an analyzer computes its own
"interesting" offsets that are not in fact simple indices into the
stri
Do you know if there will be side-effects if we replace in
DocumentWriter$FieldData#invertField
offset = offsetEnd+1;
by
offset = stringValue.length();
I still not understand the reason of such choice for the incrementation
of the start offset.
Regards.
Michael McCandless wrote:
This is ho
This is how Lucene has worked for quite some time (since 1.9).
When there are multiple fields with the same name in one Document,
each field's offset starts from the last offset (offset of the last
token) seen in the previous field. If tokens are skipped at the end
there's no way IndexWri
