[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15828365#comment-15828365
]
Adrien Grand commented on SOLR-8396:
------------------------------------
It is a pity we have to add that many calls to {{isPointField()}} but I don't
have a better idea and I think it is nice how you emit explicit errors eg. when
users try to sort on a point field that does not have doc values. Otherwise the
change looks good, I focused on the point types and the way you generate eg.
range queries using {{*Point.nextDown/nextUp}} looked good.
One suggestion for a simplification: in the below change, it looks like the
logic that you apply to point fields would work in the general case and be as
efficient?
{code}
+ if (ft.isPointField()) {
+ for (String term : terms) {
+ int count = searcher.numDocs(ft.getFieldQuery(null, sf, term),
parsed.docs);
+ res.add(term, count);
+ }
+ } else {
+ for (String term : terms) {
+ String internal = ft.toInternal(term);
+ int count = searcher.numDocs(new TermQuery(new Term(field, internal)),
parsed.docs);
+ res.add(term, count);
+ }
}
{code}
> 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, 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]
