Hi, Thanks for your answer.
I am doing range queries on this field, yes, that's why I cared about how all this trie thing works :) If I use precisionStep=0 would it be equivalent to use, say, a SortableIntField? Would it be possible that you explained, for example, the difference in how it would work using a precisionStep=0 or using a precisionStep=Integer.MAX_VALUE? May be this way I could get an idea on how it works. I've read as much information as I've been able to find, but I didn't get a clear idea. Thanks a lot, Juan El dom, 15-05-2011 a las 11:01 -0400, Erick Erickson escribió: > Are you doing range queries on this field? Range queries are where > Trie shines, so worrying about > precision step if you're NOT intending to do range queries is a waste, > just use precisionstep=0. > > In fact, with only 1,000 values, I'd just go with PrecisionStep=0 > (which is the int field) > > Best > Erick > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Juan Antonio Farré Basurte > <juan.fa...@reviewpro.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm quite a beginner in solr and have many doubts while trying to learn how > > everything works. > > I have only a slight idea on how TrieFields work. > > The thing is I have an integer value that will always be in the range > > 0-1000. A short field would be enough for this, but there is no such > > TrieShortField (not even a SortableShortField). So, I used a TrieIntField. > > My doubt is, in this case, what would be a suitable value for > > precisionStep. If the field had only 1000 distinct values, but they were > > more or less uniformly distributed in the 32-bit int range, probably a big > > precisionStep would be suitable. But as my values are in the range 0 to > > 1000, I think (without much knowledge) that a low precisionStep should be > > more adequate. For example, 2. > > Can anybody, please, help me finding a good configuration for this type? > > And, if possible, can anybody explain in a brief and intuitive way what are > > the differences and tradeoffs of choosing smaller or bigger precisionSteps? > > Thanks a lot, > > > > Juan
