[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10255?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17869737#comment-17869737
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-10255:
-------------------------------------
LOL I didn't know SortableBinaryField even existed. That one should definitely
have docValues for sorting.
> Large psuedo-stored fields via BinaryDocValuesField
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-10255
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10255
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Assignee: David Smiley
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 9.7
>
> Attachments: SOLR-10255.patch, SOLR-10255.patch
>
> Time Spent: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> (sub-issue of SOLR-10117) This is a proposal for a better way for Solr to
> handle "large" text fields. Large docs that are in Lucene StoredFields slow
> requests that don't involve access to such fields. This is fundamental to
> the fact that StoredFields are row-stored. Worse, the Solr documentCache
> will wind up holding onto massive Strings. While the latter could be tackled
> on it's own somehow as it's the most serious issue, nevertheless it seems
> wrong that such large fields are in row-stored storage to begin with. After
> all, relational DBs seemed to have figured this out and put CLOBs/BLOBs in a
> separate place. Here, we do similarly by using, Lucene
> {{BinaryDocValuesField}}. BDVF isn't well known in the DocValues family as
> it's not for typical DocValues purposes like sorting/faceting etc. The
> default DocValuesFormat doesn't compress these but we could write one that
> does.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
