lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>
Subject Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
Date Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:43:38 GMT
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Lance Norskog <goksron@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trie fields also do not support faceting.

Only those that index multiple tokens per value to speed up range queries.

> They also take more ram in
> some operations.

Should be less memory on average.

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

> 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