+1, we should remove the Lucene doc values based queries. Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:17 PM, David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > Alex, > > ... ok Yonik beet me to it. But any way, the index structure & the > docValues structure are dramatically different for very different use-cases. > > I think it's a bad thing that we let you do queries on a field with > docValues that has no index *by default* -- i.e. without some field type > attribute where you expressly allow it because you know what you're doing. > I've seen mistakes where this was happening unbeknownst to the person > configuring the schema. > > ~ David > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:02 PM Alexandre Rafalovitch <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I was looking at the type definitions in our examples and we have >> numerics with precisionStep=0 and those with precisionStep=8. But the >> documentation that explains why the later are useful >> (NumericRangeQuery) is now a (LegacyNumericRangeQuery) and the source >> code seems to show that docValues can (should?) be used instead. >> >> So, are the additional types with non-zero precisionStep still have >> their place? Or can we just use a single numeric type and add >> docValues if they will be used with range queries? >> >> Regards, >> Alex. >> >> ---- >> Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates: >> http://www.solr-start.com/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> -- > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www. > solrenterprisesearchserver.com >
