Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Marc Sturlese wrote: > > Should sortMissingLast param be working on trie-fields? > > Nope, trie fields do not support sortMissingFirst or sortMissingLast. -- Regards, Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Lance Norskog wrote: > Trie fields also do not support faceting. Only those that index multiple tokens per value to speed up range queries. > They also take more ram in > some operations. Should be less memory on average. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com > Given these defects, I'm not sure that promoting tries as the default > is appropriate at this time. (I'm sure this is an old argument.:) > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Steve Conover wrote: >> I just noticed this comment in the default schema: >> >> >> >> Does that mean TrieFields are never going to get sortMissingLast? >> >> Do you all think that a reasonable strategy is to use a copyField and >> use "s" fields for sorting (only), and trie for everything else? >> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Steve Conover wrote: >>> Am I correct in thinking that trie fields don't support >>> sortMissingLast (my tests show that they don't). If not, is there any >>> plan for adding it in? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve >>> >> > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com >
Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Steve Conover wrote: >> Not in time for 1.4, but yes they will eventually get it. >> It has to do with the representation... currently we can't tell >> between a 0 and "missing". > > Hmm. So does that mean that a query for latitudes, stored as trie > floats, from -10 to +10 matches documents with no (i.e. null) latitude > value? No, because normal queries work off of the inverted index (term->docids_that_match), and there won't be any values indexed for that document. Sorting and function queries work off of a non-inverted index (docid->value), that depending on the representation can't tell non-matching from default value. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com
Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
> Not in time for 1.4, but yes they will eventually get it. > It has to do with the representation... currently we can't tell > between a 0 and "missing". Hmm. So does that mean that a query for latitudes, stored as trie floats, from -10 to +10 matches documents with no (i.e. null) latitude value?
Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Steve Conover wrote: > I just noticed this comment in the default schema: > > > > Does that mean TrieFields are never going to get sortMissingLast? Not in time for 1.4, but yes they will eventually get it. It has to do with the representation... currently we can't tell between a 0 and "missing". > Do you all think that a reasonable strategy is to use a copyField and > use "s" fields for sorting (only), and trie for everything else? If you don't need the fast range queries, use the "s" fields only. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Steve Conover wrote: >> Am I correct in thinking that trie fields don't support >> sortMissingLast (my tests show that they don't). If not, is there any >> plan for adding it in? >> >> Regards, >> Steve >> >
Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
Trie fields also do not support faceting. They also take more ram in some operations. Given these defects, I'm not sure that promoting tries as the default is appropriate at this time. (I'm sure this is an old argument.:) On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Steve Conover wrote: > I just noticed this comment in the default schema: > > > > Does that mean TrieFields are never going to get sortMissingLast? > > Do you all think that a reasonable strategy is to use a copyField and > use "s" fields for sorting (only), and trie for everything else? > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Steve Conover wrote: >> Am I correct in thinking that trie fields don't support >> sortMissingLast (my tests show that they don't). If not, is there any >> plan for adding it in? >> >> Regards, >> Steve >> > -- Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com
Re: trie fields and sortMissingLast
I just noticed this comment in the default schema: Does that mean TrieFields are never going to get sortMissingLast? Do you all think that a reasonable strategy is to use a copyField and use "s" fields for sorting (only), and trie for everything else? On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Steve Conover wrote: > Am I correct in thinking that trie fields don't support > sortMissingLast (my tests show that they don't). If not, is there any > plan for adding it in? > > Regards, > Steve >
trie fields and sortMissingLast
Am I correct in thinking that trie fields don't support sortMissingLast (my tests show that they don't). If not, is there any plan for adding it in? Regards, Steve
