[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3354?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13073532#comment-13073532
]
Martijn van Groningen commented on LUCENE-3354:
-----------------------------------------------
bq. What are thoughts on using DocValues rather then FieldCache?
Maybe both should be available. Not all fields have indexed docvalues.
bq. We should start with this in 4.0! For backwards compatibility we could
still have the FieldCache class, but just delegating.
Changing the architecture seems like a big task to me. Maybe that should be
done in a different issue. This issue will then depend on it.
> Extend FieldCache architecture to multiple Values
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3354
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3354
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Bill Bell
>
> I would consider this a bug. It appears lots of people are working around
> this limitation,
> why don't we just change the underlying data structures to natively support
> multiValued fields in the FieldCache architecture?
> Then functions() will work properly, and we can do things like easily
> geodist() on a multiValued field.
> Thoughts?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
