[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-940?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12677773#action_12677773
]
Shalin Shekhar Mangar commented on SOLR-940:
--------------------------------------------
bq. If the precisionStep is configureable, you can simply use 32 (for ints) or
64 (for longs) to not create additional precisions.
That's great, I'll document this on the wiki.
bq. In queryParser you use: FieldType ft = schema.getFieldType(field); So if
you have the FieldType, why are you not able to extract the precisionStep from
the schema?
Yes, done, must have been the late night effect :)
bq. For future usage, you could use TrieUtils.get[Int|Long]SortField for
FieldType.getSortField instead of using SortField.String. If the problem with
more than one field name is solved, sorting works using the Trie-SortField
using the correct parser.
Done too
> TrieRange support
> -----------------
>
> Key: SOLR-940
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-940
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Yonik Seeley
> Fix For: 1.4
>
> Attachments: SOLR-940.patch, SOLR-940.patch
>
>
> We need support in Solr for the new TrieRange Lucene functionality.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
