[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15578981#comment-15578981
]
Tomás Fernández Löbbe commented on SOLR-8396:
---------------------------------------------
After talking with Adrian, and later with some more people at the Lucene
Revolution, the plan is that PointFields will use {{SortedNumericDocValues}}
instead of {{SortedSetDocValues}} for multi-valued cases. Doing that involves
much more work, since we need to change all the consumers. This patch is
already getting large, so I think it may be better to tackle that in a followup
Jira.
In the recent branch commits:
* I removed the use of {{SortedSetDocValues}} from the PointFields and I throw
an exception if the user tries to create a PointField with MultiValued DV (I'm
now ignoring the tests which required MV fields with DV).
* I fixed the issue with returning DV as stored fields that I was hitting.
* Added LongPointField.
[~steve_rowe] had some concerns about naming, since Solr already has a
{{PointType}} and in the schemas I'm using "pTYPE", which could be confused
with the old "Plain numeric fields" (Solr 1.4-ish?). I'm open to suggestions.
> Add support for PointFields in Solr
> -----------------------------------
>
> 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, SOLR-8396.patch,
> SOLR-8396.patch, SOLR-8396.patch, SOLR-8396.patch, 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]
