[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15828365#comment-15828365 ]
Adrien Grand commented on SOLR-8396: ------------------------------------ It is a pity we have to add that many calls to {{isPointField()}} but I don't have a better idea and I think it is nice how you emit explicit errors eg. when users try to sort on a point field that does not have doc values. Otherwise the change looks good, I focused on the point types and the way you generate eg. range queries using {{*Point.nextDown/nextUp}} looked good. One suggestion for a simplification: in the below change, it looks like the logic that you apply to point fields would work in the general case and be as efficient? {code} + if (ft.isPointField()) { + for (String term : terms) { + int count = searcher.numDocs(ft.getFieldQuery(null, sf, term), parsed.docs); + res.add(term, count); + } + } else { + for (String term : terms) { + String internal = ft.toInternal(term); + int count = searcher.numDocs(new TermQuery(new Term(field, internal)), parsed.docs); + res.add(term, count); + } } {code} > Add support for PointFields in Solr > ----------------------------------- > > 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, SOLR-8396.patch, > SOLR-8396.patch, SOLR-8396.patch, SOLR-8396.patch, SOLR-8396.patch, > 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-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org