[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15212649#comment-15212649
]
Yonik Seeley edited comment on SOLR-8396 at 3/26/16 12:19 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
bq. Personally, I think it would be worth the effort to see if the Lucene guys
can stick to to old names for IntField
>From the Solr perspective, this doesn't bubble up to most users... our current
>numeric fields are called TrieIntField, TrieDoubleField, etc. Those names
>shouldn't be changing. We can pick whatever we want for the new solr
>FieldType names that will be visible in the schema. And then "int","long",etc
>will map to those new field types.
In keeping with our naming convention of having FieldTypes end with Field, this
leaves two obvious options:
IntField, DoubleField, ... // I think I prefer this one
IntPointField, DoublePointField,...
Oh, and we should cut over to SortedNumericDocValues for multi-valued docvalues
at the same time: SOLR-7878
(NOTE: I'm not saying that whoever tackles these point types *needs* to also
tackle SOLR-7878, but that multi-valued numeric docvalues should be unsupported
in the new point types until we do it right to prevent more migration issues)
was (Author: [email protected]):
bq. Personally, I think it would be worth the effort to see if the Lucene guys
can stick to to old names for IntField
>From the Solr perspective, this doesn't bubble up to most users... our current
>numeric fields are called TrieIntField, TrieDoubleField, etc. Those names
>shouldn't be changing. We can pick whatever we want for the new solr
>FieldType names that will be visible in the schema. And then "int","long",etc
>will map to those new field types.
In keeping with our naming convention of having FieldTypes end with Field, this
leaves two obvious options:
IntField, DoubleField, ...
IntPointField, DoublePointField,...
Oh, and we should cut over to SortedNumericDocValues for multi-valued docvalues
at the same time: SOLR-7878
(NOTE: I'm not saying that whoever tackles these point types *needs* to also
tackle SOLR-7878, but that multi-valued numeric docvalues should be unsupported
in the new point types until we do it right to prevent more migration issues)
> 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]
