[hibernate-dev] Search DSL expectations for "keyword()" clause

[Emmanuel Bernard]

A bit late in the game but for the record, I am not too surprised by this behavior. And a lot of our users are not Lucene expects and won’t intuit the difference you are talking about here unless explained.
That being said, I wish I had named "keyword” differently.

> On 27 Aug 2015, at 11:53, Sanne Grinovero <sanne at hibernate.org> wrote:
> 
> For the record, Gustavo replied forgetting to CC the list stating that
> he would expect it to produce a valid NumericRangeQuery, and that
> seems to be the expectation of Adrian too, gauging at some code he
> wrote.
> 
> That surprised me. I'm personally feeling more comfortable with
> Hardy's answer, as I'm looking at "keyword()" as something which
> explicitly demands for a TermQuery.
> 
> However the current DSL implementation will have this produce a valid
> NumericRangeQuery - except in some corner cases I'm working on - so I
> don't think we can change this in a minor release, not least as the
> HQL parser and downstream projects rely on this.
> 
> There is an open issue caused by the fact that the current
> implementation isn't consistent as it fails to recognize the field as
> Numeric when it's wrapped by one of the other FieldBridge decorators
> (a simple instanceof isn't safe for such purposes).
> 
> So.. questions:
> 
> 1# Deprecate?
> I'll have to fix the inconsistency for now and make it produce a
> working query in all cases... but do we want to deprecate this and
> have it produce a WARN to state that you really shouldn't use a
> keyword() on numeric fields?
> 
> 2# Alternatives?
> If we decide that keyword() should not be abused for this and will be
> deprecated, should we give an alternative method like
> "exactEqualsQuery()" to provide a flexible alternative (working with
> either keyword, number, null tokens).
> 
> Thanks,
> Sanne
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 August 2015 at 10:36, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>> 2015-08-27 11:27 GMT+02:00 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy at hibernate.org>:
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:58:39PM +0100, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>> Assuming you build a Lucene Query the following way:
>>>> 
>>>>    queryBuilder.keyword().onField( "age" ).matching( 5 ).createQuery();
>>>> 
>>>> What is your expectation, if the "age" field is being indexed as a NumericField?
>>> 
>>> I would say that this throws an exception. At least atm. Numeric encoded
>>> fields needs to be targeted by a range query. One could imagine to transparently
>>> create a range query in this case. I guess by the metadata we could tell that we have
>>> a numeric field. However, that's a a lot of magic then, in particular since we
>>> always that that a keyword query maps to a TermQuery.
>> 
>> Hum, but that's already happening, no?
>> 
>> See DSLTest.testUseOfFieldBridge() where we do exactly that:
>> 
>>    monthQb.keyword().onField( "monthValue" ).matching( 2 ).createQuery();
>> 
>> Internally it's creating a NumericRangeQuery with start/end set to the
>> same value.
>> 
>> If the field uses a null encoding bridge, it'd be a String field,
>> though, if I am not mistaken (unless we use some numeric null encoding
>> as discussed recently), so a simple TermQuery query would be the right
>> thing.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> --Hardy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev