You shouldn't need to use setNumericPrecisionStep at all: that's how Lucene's old numerics worked.
For boolean type, Lucene will still use one byte per value when you index it as points (or as a term) ... I don't know how to get that down to only 1 bit :) Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Cristian Lorenzetto < cristian.lorenze...@gmail.com> wrote: > in addition in the previous version of my code i used > TYPE.setNumericPrecisionStep for setting the precision of a number in > docvalues. Now i saw it is deprecated. > So i have a similar question also in this case: it is still possible > to use less space for (byte,boolean,short,int) types? > > > 2016-08-10 11:35 GMT+02:00 Cristian Lorenzetto < > cristian.lorenze...@gmail.com>: > > > ok thanks so i can do them. > > but for boolean type? i could compress using bit. Is there pack function > > for boolean arrays? > > > > 2016-08-10 11:25 GMT+02:00 Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com > >: > > > >> It's partially right! > >> > >> E.g. IndexWriter will use less memory, and so you'll get better indexing > >> throughput with a ShortPoint and BytePoint. > >> > >> But index size will be the same, because Lucene's default codec does a > >> good > >> job compressing these values. > >> > >> Mike McCandless > >> > >> http://blog.mikemccandless.com > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Cristian Lorenzetto < > >> cristian.lorenze...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > sorry but I was developping a shortPoint and BytePoint for less using > >> less > >> > memory space. it is wrong? > >> > > >> > 2016-08-09 22:01 GMT+02:00 Michael McCandless < > >> luc...@mikemccandless.com>: > >> > > >> > > It's best to index numeric using the new dimensional points, e.g. > >> > IntPoint. > >> > > > >> > > Mike McCandless > >> > > > >> > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Cristian Lorenzetto < > >> > > cristian.lorenze...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > how to encode a short or a byte type in byteRef in lucene 6.1? > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
