[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-752?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12891305#action_12891305
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-752:
-----------------------------------
I already looked at BinaryField and TrieField for inspiration. BinaryField
assumes you're not going to index the data. And TrieField doesn't set binary
data value on the Field.
Yes, I think the next step is to make createField() return Fieldable. But I'm
not a committer...
Instead or in addition... I have to wonder, why not modify Lucene's Field class
to allow me to set the Index, Store, and TermVecotr enums AND specify binary
data on a suitable constructor? Arguably an existing constructor taking String
would be hijaced to take Object and then do the right thing. That would be a
small change, whereas implementing another subclass of AbstractField is more
complex and would likely reproduce much of what's in Field already.
> Allow better Field Compression options
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-752
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-752
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
> Priority: Minor
>
> See http://lucene.markmail.org/message/sd4mgwud6caevb35?q=compression
> It would be good if Solr handled field compression outside of Lucene's
> Field.COMPRESS capabilities, since those capabilities are less than ideal
> when it comes to control over compression.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
