lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (SOLR-8396) Investigate PointField to replace NumericField types
Date Sat, 26 Mar 2016 00:19:25 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15212649#comment-15212649
] 

Yonik Seeley edited comment on SOLR-8396 at 3/26/16 12:19 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------

bq. Personally, I think it would be worth the effort to see if the Lucene guys can stick to
to old names for IntField

>From the Solr perspective, this doesn't bubble up to most users... our current numeric
fields are called TrieIntField, TrieDoubleField, etc.  Those names shouldn't be changing.
 We can pick whatever we want for the new solr FieldType names that will be visible in the
schema.  And then "int","long",etc will map to those new field types.

In keeping with our naming convention of having FieldTypes end with Field, this leaves two
obvious options:
IntField, DoubleField, ...   // I think I prefer this one
IntPointField, DoublePointField,...

Oh, and we should cut over to SortedNumericDocValues for multi-valued docvalues at the same
time: SOLR-7878
(NOTE: I'm not saying that whoever tackles these point types *needs* to also tackle SOLR-7878,
but that multi-valued numeric docvalues should be unsupported in the new point types until
we do it right to prevent more migration issues)


was (Author: yseeley@gmail.com):
bq. Personally, I think it would be worth the effort to see if the Lucene guys can stick to
to old names for IntField

>From the Solr perspective, this doesn't bubble up to most users... our current numeric
fields are called TrieIntField, TrieDoubleField, etc.  Those names shouldn't be changing.
 We can pick whatever we want for the new solr FieldType names that will be visible in the
schema.  And then "int","long",etc will map to those new field types.

In keeping with our naming convention of having FieldTypes end with Field, this leaves two
obvious options:
IntField, DoubleField, ...
IntPointField, DoublePointField,...

Oh, and we should cut over to SortedNumericDocValues for multi-valued docvalues at the same
time: SOLR-7878
(NOTE: I'm not saying that whoever tackles these point types *needs* to also tackle SOLR-7878,
but that multi-valued numeric docvalues should be unsupported in the new point types until
we do it right to prevent more migration issues)

> Investigate PointField to replace NumericField types
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-8396
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>         Attachments: SOLR-8396.patch, SOLR-8396.patch
>
>
> In LUCENE-6917, [~mikemccand] mentioned that DimensionalValues are better than NumericFields
in most respects. We should explore the benefits of using it in Solr and hence, if appropriate,
switch over to using them.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message