;
> Uwe
>
> -
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: aravinth thangasami [mailto:aravinththangas...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:54 AM
>
phi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: aravinth thangasami [mailto:aravinththangas...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:54 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Indexing Numeric value in Lucene 4.10.4
>
> we don't have to sort o
we don't have to sort on that field
So that we thought of that approach
Thanks for your opinion
will consider improving precision step
Kind regards,
Aravinth
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson
wrote:
> bq: What are your opinions on this?
>
> That this is not a sound approach. Why
bq: What are your opinions on this?
That this is not a sound approach. Why do you think Trie is expensive?
What evidence do you have at all for that? Strings are significantly
expensive relative to numeric fields. Plus, you can adjust the
precision step to reduce the "overhead" of a trie field.
I
Hi all,
I'm searching numeric value and will not perform range query on that field
I thought of indexing it as String field instead of NumericField
so that it will improve indexing time by avoiding numeric tries
What are your opinions on this?
Kind regards,
Aravinth
