lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
Date Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:54:09 GMT
Trie fields also do not support faceting. They also take more ram in
some operations.

Given these defects, I'm not sure that promoting tries as the default
is appropriate at this time. (I'm sure this is an old argument.:)

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Steve Conover <sconover@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just noticed this comment in the default schema:
>
> <!--
>       These types should only be used for back compatibility with existing
>       indexes, or if "sortMissingLast" functionality is needed. Use
> Trie based fields instead.
>    -->
>
> Does that mean TrieFields are never going to get sortMissingLast?
>
> Do you all think that a reasonable strategy is to use a copyField and
> use "s" fields for sorting (only), and trie for everything else?
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Steve Conover <sconover@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am I correct in thinking that trie fields don't support
>> sortMissingLast (my tests show that they don't).  If not, is there any
>> plan for adding it in?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>>
>



-- 
Lance Norskog
goksron@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message