Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Handle numeric fields other than float64 in processProperty #148

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 5, 2016
Merged

Handle numeric fields other than float64 in processProperty #148

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 5, 2016

Conversation

pdf
Copy link
Contributor

@pdf pdf commented Jan 15, 2015

Assert non-float types to type float64, then re-process.

Assert non-float types to type float64, then re-process.

Fixes #106
@mschoch
Copy link
Contributor

mschoch commented Jan 15, 2016

I'm starting to be persuaded that this is the right way to go for now. We would need to test and document that integer precision is limited by conversion through float64. But that this is acceptable for many use cases, so we should not let that block integrating the feature. Fixing this correctly can be put off to bleve2, etc.

@mmurray
Copy link

mmurray commented Jan 15, 2016

I need to index a struct with int fields so I just tried this out and it works great for my needs. Thanks @pdf

@slavikm
Copy link
Contributor

slavikm commented Jan 26, 2016

@mschoch - would really love to get this merged. Just my +1 :-)

mschoch added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2016
Handle numeric fields other than float64 in processProperty
@mschoch mschoch merged commit 71ba2ea into blevesearch:master Feb 5, 2016
abhinavdangeti added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 21, 2023
To include:
* 67addef Callum Jones | Fixed 64-bit alignment panic in chunkedContentCoder on 32-bit platforms. (#148)
abhinavdangeti added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 21, 2023
To include:
* 67addef Callum Jones | Fixed 64-bit alignment panic in chunkedContentCoder on 32-bit platforms. (#148)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants