[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15829078#comment-15829078
]
Tomás Fernández Löbbe commented on SOLR-8396:
---------------------------------------------
Thanks for the review Adrien.
bq. It is a pity we have to add that many calls to isPointField()
Agree. Some of those will be eventually removed, like the ones that prevent not
supported features or where we are calling {{toInternalByteRef(...)}}. In part
that's why I propose we deprecate {{toInternal(...)}} in favor of
{{toInternalByteRef(...)}}.
bq. One suggestion for a simplification:
That's a good idea, but since I don't know what all the
{{FieldType.getFieldQuery(...)}} implementations are doing I'd prefer to leave
that to a different Jira. I've been running tests with the current patch for
some time and I've seen no related issues
> 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
