Le mer. 26 oct. 2016 à 16:23, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Docvalues benefits is the reason we recommend them by default (and > non-text fields now do have docvalues by default). > They do have some drawbacks however: > - Require reindexing > I don't think that one is an issue if the schema examples enable doc values by default. > - Take up more index space > If doc values are using X GB of disk space, then it means FieldCache would use *at least* as much *memory*. It sounds pretty weird to me to not be willing to put on disk something that would reside in memory otherwise. - Slower than FieldCache > It depends what we are talking about. While facets on a static index might be slightly faster, FieldCache makes reopens much slower. > So although the majority will be better served by docvalues, I don't > think there should be a rush to remove the option of using the > FieldCache. > Doc values have been out for more than 4 years, I don't think I am rushing anything. FieldCache has existed for a very long time, so it does not look too terrible, but when you think about it, wouldn't you think it is crazy if we decided to build an inverted index in memory from stored fields on the first time that a field is searched on? Finally something that annoys me too is that it makes points harder to integrate since it is expected that a field that is indexed with points instead of the inverted index should be uninvertable too.
