On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Well, I guess my first question is whether using stirngs
> is "fast enough", in which case there's little reason to
> make your life more complex.
>
> But yes, range queries will be significantly faster with
> any of the Trie types than with strings.
To elaborate on this point a bit... range queries on strings will be
the same speed as a numeric field with precisionStep=0.
You need a precisionStep > 0 (so the number will be indexed in
multiple parts) to speed up range queries on numeric fields. (See
"int" vs "tint" in the solr schema).
-Yonik
lucenerevolution.com - Lucene/Solr Open Source Search Conference.
Boston May 7-10
Trie types are
> all numeric types.
>
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:49 AM, crive wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> is there a big difference in terms of performances when querying a range
>> like [50.0 TO *] on a string field compared to a float field?
>>
>> At the moment I am using a dynamic field of type string to map some values
>> coming from our database and their type can vary depending on the context
>> (float/integer/string); it easier to use a dynamic field other than having
>> to create a bespoke field for each type of value.
>>
>> Marco
