Hi, I think Jason meant the field value, not the field name.
Field names should stay Strings, as they are only "identifiers" making them BytesRefs is not really useful. But when you create an untokenized field (or even a binary field, which is stored-only at the moment), you could theoretically index the bytes directly. ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Muir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 6:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Field should accept BytesRef? > > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Jason Rutherglen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the Field object a text value must be of type string, however I > > think we can allow a BytesRef to be passed in? > > > > it would be nice if we sorted them in byte order too? I think right now fields > are sorted in utf-16 order, but terms are sorted in utf-8 order? (if so, this > is > confusing) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional > commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
