Would it make sense to instead add new tint(eger) type instead of renaming
integer to pinteger? (thinking about people upgrading to Solr 1.4).
Otis
--
Sematext is hiring -- http://sematext.com/about/jobs.html?mls
Lucene, Solr, Nutch, Katta, Hadoop, HBase, UIMA, NLP, NER, IR
- Original Message
From: Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2009 3:01:09 PM
Subject: trie fields default in example schema
I'm working on a jumbo trie patch (just many smaller trie related
issues at once) - SOLR-1288.
Anyway, I think support will be good enough for 1.4 that we should
make types like integer in the example schema be based on the trie
fields. The current integer fields should be renamed to pinteger
(for plain integer), and have a recommended use only for compatibility
with other/older indexes. People have mistakenly used the plain
integer in the past based on the name, so I think we should fix the
naming.
The trie based fields should have lower memory footprint in the
fieldcache and are faster for a lookup (the only reason to use plain
ints in the past)... sint uses StringIndex for historical reasons - we
had no other option... we could upgrade the existing sint fields, but
it wouldn't be quite 100% compatible and there's little reason since
we have the trie fields now.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
