[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15212559#comment-15212559
]
Jack Krupansky commented on SOLR-8396:
--------------------------------------
My apologies as I am still only very slowly coming up to speed on this "New
Math For Lucene" stuff. It feels like there are three distinct issues in play:
1. Desire to use the latest and greatest Lucene numeric field types. Granted,
they are currently now called IntPoint, FloatPoint, DoublePoint, etc., but
functionally they are still simply int, float, and double values - no semantic
difference, just the class names and then some method name changes for indexing
(?) and query. My feeling is that we should preserve the legacy type names even
if Lucene insists on calling them "points." Keep user schema files unchanged.
2. Desire to work with existing data - and existing schema files. Mix
metaphors: cans of worms and nested Russian dolls.
3. Desire to auto-upgrade existing Solr index data to new "points" for better
performance, reduced storage, reduced memory, reduced heap.
Some points:
1. Personally, I think it would be worth the effort to see if the Lucene guys
can stick to to old names for IntField, et al even if the implementation is
different under the hood.
2. Maybe there will be a need to be able to open an existing numeric field,
discover that it is legacy numeric field (trie), and then under the hood use
some wrapper to maintain the new API for the old format. IOW, switch Solr to
using the new API, even for legacy numeric fields.
3. Seems like there is some need investigate the possibility or a
NumericFieldUpgrader to rewrite a trie field as a point field. Seems like a
necessary job for the Lucene guys for existing Lucene indexes, even if Solr
wasn't in the picture.
> Investigate PointField to replace NumericField types
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-8396
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> Attachments: SOLR-8396.patch, SOLR-8396.patch
>
>
> In LUCENE-6917, [~mikemccand] mentioned that DimensionalValues are better
> than NumericFields in most respects. We should explore the benefits of using
> it in Solr and hence, if appropriate, switch over to using them.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
