numberic or string type for non-sortable field?
I wonder if i shall use solr int or string for such field with following requirement multi-value facet needed sort not needed The field value is a an id. Therefore, i can store as either numeric field or just a string. Shall i choose string for efficiency? Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/numberic-or-string-type-for-non-sortable-field-tp2606353p2606353.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: numberic or string type for non-sortable field?
I wonder if i shall use solr int or string for such field with following requirement multi-value facet needed sort not needed The field value is a an id. Therefore, i can store as either numeric field or just a string. Shall i choose string for efficiency? Trie based integer (tint) is preferred for faster faceting.
Re: numberic or string type for non-sortable field?
: The field value is a an id. Therefore, i can store as : either numeric field : or just a string. Shall i choose string : for efficiency? : : Trie based integer (tint) is preferred for faster faceting. range faceting/filtering yes -- not for field faceting which is what i think he's asking about. in that case int would still proably be more efficient, but you don't want precision steps (that will introduce added terms) -Hoss
Re: numberic or string type for non-sortable field?
Sorry i didn't make my question clear. I will only facet based on field value, not ranged query (it is just some ids for a multi-value field). And i won't do sort on the field either. In that case, is string more efficient for the requirement? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/numberic-or-string-type-for-non-sortable-field-tp2606353p2606762.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: numberic or string type for non-sortable field?
I will only facet based on field value, not ranged query (it is just some ids for a multi-value field). And i won't do sort on the field either. In that case, is string more efficient for the requirement? Hoss was saying to use, fieldType name=int class=solr.TrieIntField precisionStep=0 omitNorms=true positionIncrementGap=0/
Re: numberic or string type for non-sortable field?
Can I know why? I thought solr is tuned for string if no sorting of facet by range query is needed. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/numberic-or-string-type-for-non-sortable-field-tp2606353p2607932.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: numberic or string type for non-sortable field?
: Can I know why? I thought solr is tuned for string if no sorting of facet by : range query is needed. tuned for string doesn't really mean anything to me, i'm not sure what that's in refrence to. nothing thta i know of is particularly optimized for strings. Almost anything can be indexed/stored/represented as a string (in some form ot another) and that tends to work fine in solr, but some things are optimized for other more specialized datatypes. the reason i suggested that using ints might (marginally) be better is because of the FieldCache and the fieldValueCache -- the int representation uses less memory then if it was holding strings representing hte same ints. worrying about that is really a premature optimization though -- model your data in the way that makes the most sense -- if your ids are inherently ints, model them as ints until you come up with a reason to model them otherwise and move on to the next problem. -Hoss
