On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org>wrote:
> > : Subject: Down to 5 > > I reopened SOLR-1448 because it seems perfectly reasonable to me .. > looking for a reply. > > I'm also just waiting on someone else to test/review SOLR-1449 ... > otherwise it should be pushed to 1.5. > > > > -Hoss > > Hi Grant, I was just looking at the documentation bug SOLR-1483 and I found the following comments in the comments in the schema file. Numeric field types that index each value at various levels of precision to accelerate range queries when the number of values between the range endpoints is large Smaller precisionStep values (specified in bits) will lead to more tokens indexed per value, slightly larger index size, and faster range queries It also states that for faster range queries, consider the tint/tfloat/tlong/tdouble types. Now, the tint/tfloat/tlong/tdouble have a precisionStetp of 8 while the int/float/long/double types have a precisionStep of 0 >From these comments, it seems like the int/float/long/double with "smaller precisionstep values" should lead to more tokens indexed per value, slightly larger index size, and faster range queries. So maybe we should recommend, the int/float/long/double types over the tint/tfloat/tlong/tdouble types for faster range queries. If all we need to do is to rewrite the documentation, I can come up with a re-write of the comments in the schema file and submit the patch so that this issue can be closed. So if you want to assign this one to me, that would be fine too. -- "Good Enough" is not good enough. To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Quality First. Measure Twice. Cut Once.
