On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Steve Conover <scono...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just noticed this comment in the default schema: > > <!-- > These types should only be used for back compatibility with existing > indexes, or if "sortMissingLast" functionality is needed. Use > Trie based fields instead. > --> > > Does that mean TrieFields are never going to get sortMissingLast?
Not in time for 1.4, but yes they will eventually get it. It has to do with the representation... currently we can't tell between a 0 and "missing". > Do you all think that a reasonable strategy is to use a copyField and > use "s" fields for sorting (only), and trie for everything else? If you don't need the fast range queries, use the "s" fields only. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Steve Conover <scono...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am I correct in thinking that trie fields don't support >> sortMissingLast (my tests show that they don't). If not, is there any >> plan for adding it in? >> >> Regards, >> Steve >> >
