Move FunctionQuery to Lucene

• Key: SOLR-192
• Type: Improvement
• Status: Open
• Priority: Major
• Assignee: Unassigned
• Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
• Component/s: search

Description

FunctionQuery is a useful concept to have in Lucene core. Deprecate the Solr implementation and migrate it Lucene core. Have the deprecated Solr version call the Lucene version.

See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-446

Comments

[Will Johnson]

is anyone currently working on doing this migration? i submitted a patch to the lucene project tracker (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-989) and was going to post a patch for solr to use the new features but the implementations look to be reasonably different.

[Will Johnson]

patch attached that uses the functionality from lucene instead of solr. there were some changes in the api in the solr->lucene transition so there was one api change to a private static method in solr.search.QueryParsing. this patch also relies on LUCENE-989 (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-989) to get access to field names. a future patch could then get access to the statistics for exposing in results.

• will

[Doron Cohen]

Lucene's o.a.l.search.function was added recently, though it does
not contain everything that is in Solr's search.function.

If Solr is committed to move and use Lucene's package instead,
I will work on that in Lucene, but I wanted to make sure first that
this is going to happen.

Thanks,
Doron

[Otis Gospodnetic]

I think that's the plan/hope - move the whole thing to Lucene.

[Doron Cohen]

There are some changes pending in Lucene search.function that I am about to commit.
I would like to first make change that these changes are not conflicting with any
new functionality in Solr.

Can someone from the Solr project contribute the content of current
search.function package of solr (under both java and test) to LUCENE-1085 .

Thanks,
Doron

[Yonik Seeley]

There are some changes pending in Lucene search.function that I am about to commit.
I would like to first make change that these changes are not conflicting with any
new functionality in Solr.

Doron, I'd just go ahead and make whatever changes you see fit in Lucene, and Solr should be able to adapt to it when someone gets that particular itch to scratch. It's not like we can make a backward compatible change at the source level in solr-land anyway (because of package + class name changes).