Re: TrieField and FieldCache confusion
Thank you very much for your very fast answer and all the pointers. That's what I thought, but then I got confused by the last note http://wiki.apache.org/solr/StatsComponent TrieFields http://wiki.apache.org/solr/TrieFields has to use a precisionStep of -1 to avoid using UnInvertedFieldhttp://wiki.apache.org/solr/UnInvertedField.java. Consider using one field for doing stats, and one for doing range facetting on. I assume it referred to former version of Solr. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Chris Hostetter hossman_luc...@fucit.orgwrote: : Can I expect the FieldCache of Lucene to return the correct values when : working : with TrieField with the precisionStep higher than 0. If not, what did I get : wrong? Yes -- the code for building FieldCaches from Trie fields is smart enough to ensure that only the real original values are used to populate the Cache (See for example: FieldCache.NUMERIC_UTILS_INT_PARSER and the classes linked to from it's javadocs... https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_4_0/core/org/apache/lucene/search/FieldCache.html#NUMERIC_UTILS_INT_PARSER https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_4_0/core/org/apache/lucene/util/NumericUtils.html https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_4_0/core/org/apache/lucene/document/IntField.html (Solr's Trie fields are backed by the various numeric fields in lucene -- ie: solr:TrieIntField - lucene:IntField. the Trie* prefix is used in solr because there already had classes named IntField, DoubleField, etc... when the Trie based impls where added to lucene) -Hoss -- __ Masurel Paul e-mail: paul.masu...@gmail.com
TrieField and FieldCache confusion
Hello everyone, I have a question about Solr TrieField and Lucene FieldCache. From my understanding, Solr added the implementation of TrieField to perform faster range queries. For each value it will index multiple terms. The n-th term being a masked version of our value, showing only it first (precisionStep * n) bits. When uninverting the field to populate a FieldCache, the last value with regard to the lexicographical order will be retained ; which from my understanding should be the term with the highest precision. Can I expect the FieldCache of Lucene to return the correct values when working with TrieField with the precisionStep higher than 0. If not, what did I get wrong? Regards, Paul Masurel e-mail: paul.masu...@gmail.com
Re: TrieField and FieldCache confusion
: Can I expect the FieldCache of Lucene to return the correct values when : working : with TrieField with the precisionStep higher than 0. If not, what did I get : wrong? Yes -- the code for building FieldCaches from Trie fields is smart enough to ensure that only the real original values are used to populate the Cache (See for example: FieldCache.NUMERIC_UTILS_INT_PARSER and the classes linked to from it's javadocs... https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_4_0/core/org/apache/lucene/search/FieldCache.html#NUMERIC_UTILS_INT_PARSER https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_4_0/core/org/apache/lucene/util/NumericUtils.html https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_4_0/core/org/apache/lucene/document/IntField.html (Solr's Trie fields are backed by the various numeric fields in lucene -- ie: solr:TrieIntField - lucene:IntField. the Trie* prefix is used in solr because there already had classes named IntField, DoubleField, etc... when the Trie based impls where added to lucene) -Hoss
