Non-sortable types in sample schema

The sample schema in Solr 1.2 supplies two variants of integers, longs, floats, doubles. One variant is sortable and one is not. What is the point of having both? Why would I choose the non-sorting variants? Do they store fewer bytes per record? Thanks, Lance Norskog

Re: Instant deletes without committing

On 10/11/07, BrendanD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, we have some huge performance issues with non-cached queries. So doing a commit is very expensive for us. We have our autowarm count for our filterCache and queryResultCache both set to 4096. But I don't think that's near high enough. We did

Re: query syntax performance difference?

On 10/11/07, BrendanD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a difference in the performance for the following 2 variations on query syntax? The first query was a response from Solr by using a single fq parameter in the URL. The second query was a response from Solr by using separate fq parameter

Re: Non-sortable types in sample schema

On 10/13/07, Lance Norskog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The sample schema in Solr 1.2 supplies two variants of integers, longs, floats, doubles. One variant is sortable and one is not. What is the point of having both? Why would I choose the non-sorting variants? Do they store fewer bytes per

Re: dismax downweighting

Negative boosts? Try 0.0 to 0.99 for the negative effect. Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share - Original Message From: Matthew Runo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Friday,