You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current implementation for wildcard * does not comply with the Lucene Syntax "specification".
The docs state the following:
Implements the wildcard search query. Supported wildcards are *, which matches any
character sequence (including the empty one), and ?, which matches any single
character. '\' is the escape character.
However, liqe treats * as an arbitrary character sequence of minimum length 1. While as per documentation, an empty character sequence is allowed as well.
I know that liqe is just a "Lucene-like" parser, serializer and search engine. But I wonder if this design choice was on purpose or by accident?
I would like to adjust the search engine to comply with the standard in this subject.
How do you think about it?
I know that it would mean a breaking change. But you could bump the version number.
An alternative solution would be that the filter function takes a config param and the standard behavior can be activated with some sort of strict flag.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The current implementation for wildcard
*
does not comply with the Lucene Syntax "specification".The docs state the following:
Source: https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/branch_9_4/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/WildcardQuery.java
Source: https://lucene.apache.org/core/2_9_4/queryparsersyntax.html
However, liqe treats
*
as an arbitrary character sequence of minimum length 1. While as per documentation, an empty character sequence is allowed as well.I know that liqe is just a "Lucene-like" parser, serializer and search engine. But I wonder if this design choice was on purpose or by accident?
I would like to adjust the search engine to comply with the standard in this subject.
How do you think about it?
I know that it would mean a breaking change. But you could bump the version number.
An alternative solution would be that the
filter
function takes a config param and the standard behavior can be activated with some sort of strict flag.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: