Would it make sense to instead add new tint(eger) type instead of renaming integer to pinteger? (thinking about people upgrading to Solr 1.4).
Otis -- Sematext is hiring -- http://sematext.com/about/jobs.html?mls Lucene, Solr, Nutch, Katta, Hadoop, HBase, UIMA, NLP, NER, IR ----- Original Message ---- > From: Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> > To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2009 3:01:09 PM > Subject: trie fields default in example schema > > I'm working on a jumbo trie patch (just many smaller trie related > issues at once) - SOLR-1288. > > Anyway, I think support will be good enough for 1.4 that we should > make types like "integer" in the example schema be based on the trie > fields. The current "integer" fields should be renamed to "pinteger" > (for plain integer), and have a recommended use only for compatibility > with other/older indexes. People have mistakenly used the plain > integer in the past based on the name, so I think we should fix the > naming. > > The trie based fields should have lower memory footprint in the > fieldcache and are faster for a lookup (the only reason to use plain > ints in the past)... sint uses StringIndex for historical reasons - we > had no other option... we could upgrade the existing sint fields, but > it wouldn't be quite 100% compatible and there's little reason since > we have the trie fields now. > > -Yonik > http://www.lucidimagination.com
