Thank you Chris. I'm clear now. I'll give Luke's latest version a try when it's out.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: > > : I see. It's still a little confusing to me but I'm fine as long as > : this is the expected behavior. I also tried the "example" index > : with data that come with the solr distribution and observe the > : same behavior - only String fields are displayed. So Lucene is > : sharing _some_ types with Solr but not all. It's still a bit puzzling > : to me that Lucene is not able to understand the simple types > : such as long. But I'm OK as long as there is a reason. Thanks > : for the explanations! > > The key is that there are *no* types in Lucene ... older > versions of Lucene only supported "Strin" and clinets that wanted to index > other types had to encode those types in some way as needed. More > recently lucene has started moving away from even dealing with Strings, > and towards just indexing/searching raw byte[] ... all concepts of "field > types" in Solr are specific to Solr > > (the caveat being that Lucene has, over the years, added utilities to help > people make smart choices about how to encode some data types -- and in > the case of the Trie numeric fields SOlr uses those utilites. But that > data isn't stored anywhere in the index files themselves, so Luke has no > way of knowing that it should attempt to "decode" the binary data of a > field using the Trie utilities. That said: aparently Andrzej is working > on making it possible to tell Luke "oh BTW, i indexed this field using > this solr fieldType" ... i think he said it was on the Luke trunk) > > > -Hoss
