On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Trie fields also do not support faceting.
Only those that index multiple tokens per value to speed up range queries. > They also take more ram in > some operations. Should be less memory on average. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com > Given these defects, I'm not sure that promoting tries as the default > is appropriate at this time. (I'm sure this is an old argument.:) > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Steve Conover <scono...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I just noticed this comment in the default schema: >> >> <!-- >> These types should only be used for back compatibility with existing >> indexes, or if "sortMissingLast" functionality is needed. Use >> Trie based fields instead. >> --> >> >> Does that mean TrieFields are never going to get sortMissingLast? >> >> Do you all think that a reasonable strategy is to use a copyField and >> use "s" fields for sorting (only), and trie for everything else? >> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Steve Conover <scono...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am I correct in thinking that trie fields don't support >>> sortMissingLast (my tests show that they don't). If not, is there any >>> plan for adding it in? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve >>> >> > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com >
