RE: Changing precisionStep without a re-index

[Michael Ryan]

In case anyone tries to do this... If you facet on a TrieField and change the 
precisionStep to 0, you'll need to re-index. Changing precisionStep to 0 
changes the prefix returned by TrieField.getMainValuePrefix(FieldType), which 
then causes facets with a value of 0 to be returned.

-Michael

Changing precisionStep without a re-index

[Michael Ryan]

Is it safe to change the precisionStep for a TrieField without doing a re-index?

Specifically, I want to change a field from this:
fieldType name=tlong class=solr.TrieLongField precisionStep=8 
omitNorms=true positionIncrementGap=0/
to this:
fieldType name=long class=solr.TrieLongField precisionStep=0 
omitNorms=true positionIncrementGap=0/

By safe, I mean that searches will return the correct results, a FieldCache 
on the field will still work, clowns won't eat me...

-Michael

Re: Changing precisionStep without a re-index

[Yonik Seeley]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Michael Ryan mr...@moreover.com wrote:
 Is it safe to change the precisionStep for a TrieField without doing a 
 re-index?

Not really - it changes what tokens are indexed for them numbers and
range queries won't work correctly.
Sorting (FieldCache), function queries, etc, would still work, and
exact match queries would still work.


-Yonik
lucenerevolution.com - Lucene/Solr Open Source Search Conference.
Boston May 7-10


 Specifically, I want to change a field from this:
 fieldType name=tlong class=solr.TrieLongField precisionStep=8 
 omitNorms=true positionIncrementGap=0/
 to this:
 fieldType name=long class=solr.TrieLongField precisionStep=0 
 omitNorms=true positionIncrementGap=0/

 By safe, I mean that searches will return the correct results, a FieldCache 
 on the field will still work, clowns won't eat me...

 -Michael

RE: Changing precisionStep without a re-index

[Michael Ryan]

 Not really - it changes what tokens are indexed for them numbers and
 range queries won't work correctly.
 Sorting (FieldCache), function queries, etc, would still work, and
 exact match queries would still work.

Thanks. So it is just range queries that won't work correctly? That's okay for 
my purposes.

-Michael