Re: Sanity check on numeric types and which of them to use
3) The only reason to use a sint field is for backward compatibility and/or to use sortMissingFirst/SortMissingLast, correct? I'm using sint so I can facet and sort facets numerically. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Sanity-check-on-numeric-types-and-which-of-them-to-use-tp473893p784295.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Sanity check on numeric types and which of them to use
And what about: fieldtype name=sint class=solr.SortableIntField sortMissingLast=true/ vs. fieldtype name=bcdint class=solr.BCDIntField sortMissingLast=true/ Wich is the differenece between both? It's just bcdint always better? Thanks in advance Yonik Seeley-2 wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Jay Hill jayallenh...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Is there any benefit to using the int type as a TrieIntField w/ precisionStep=0 over the pint type for simple ints that won't be sorted or range queried? No. But given that people could throw in a random range query and have it work correctly with a trie based int (vs a plain int), seems reason enough to prefer it. 2) In 1.4, what type is now most efficient for sorting? trie and plain should be pretty equivalent (trie might be slightly faster to uninvert the first time). Both take up less memory in the field cache than sint. 3) The only reason to use a sint field is for backward compatibility and/or to use sortMissingFirst/SortMissingLast, correct? I believe so. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Sanity-check-on-numeric-types-and-which-of-them-to-use-tp26651725p26655009.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Sanity check on numeric types and which of them to use
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Marc Sturlese marc.sturl...@gmail.com wrote: And what about: fieldtype name=sint class=solr.SortableIntField sortMissingLast=true/ vs. fieldtype name=bcdint class=solr.BCDIntField sortMissingLast=true/ Wich is the differenece between both? It's just bcdint always better? Thanks in advance BCDInt was a very early attempt at a sortable int type that didnt go through binary - it went directly from base 10 (the actual string representation) to a sortable base 1 (10K fits in a single char and saves memory in the fieldCache), and it also had no size limit. It's no longer referenced in any example schemas, and it doesn't have support for function queries. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com
