[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15580006#comment-15580006
 ] 

Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-8396:
------------------------------------

bq. 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?).

The first time we went through this transition, "int" was renamed to "pint" in 
the example schema, and then a new "int" was created to use trie (numeric).
If we expect the old numerics to go away at some point, we could do the same 
thing.  In the longer run, keeping simple names like "int" for our primary 
types is nice.
If we're taking a more phased approach though, we might want to wait until 
point fields work with more stuff before rename.


> 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: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to