I'm +1 to phase the FieldCache (UninvertedField) out in some release ahead, like Solr 7. The upgrade process is to switch to DV in a 6x release first.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:52 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: > Le mer. 26 oct. 2016 à 16:23, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Docvalues benefits is the reason we recommend them by default (and > non-text fields now do have docvalues by default). > They do have some drawbacks however: > - Require reindexing > > > I don't think that one is an issue if the schema examples enable doc > values by default. > > > - Take up more index space > > > If doc values are using X GB of disk space, then it means FieldCache would > use *at least* as much *memory*. It sounds pretty weird to me to not be > willing to put on disk something that would reside in memory otherwise. > > - Slower than FieldCache > > > It depends what we are talking about. While facets on a static index might > be slightly faster, FieldCache makes reopens much slower. > > > So although the majority will be better served by docvalues, I don't > think there should be a rush to remove the option of using the > FieldCache. > > > Doc values have been out for more than 4 years, I don't think I am rushing > anything. FieldCache has existed for a very long time, so it does not look > too terrible, but when you think about it, wouldn't you think it is crazy > if we decided to build an inverted index in memory from stored fields on > the first time that a field is searched on? > > Finally something that annoys me too is that it makes points harder to > integrate since it is expected that a field that is indexed with points > instead of the inverted index should be uninvertable too. > -- Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
