Todd Long wrote
> I'm curious as to where the loss of precision would be when using
> "-(Double.MAX_VALUE)" as you mentioned? Also, any specific reason why you
> chose that over Double.MIN_VALUE (sorry, just making sure I'm not missing
> something)?
So, to answer my own question it looks like Doub
Chris Hostetter-3 wrote
> ...i mention this as being a workarround for floats/doubles because the
> functions are evaluated as doubles (no "casting" or "forced integer
> context" type support at the moment), so with integer/float fields there
> would be some loss of precision.
Excellent, thank
: value? I need the sort such that ascending will have the NULL values first
: and descending will have the NULL values last (i.e. sortMissingFirst="false"
: and sortMissingLast="false").
You can configure a default="X" attribute on your field such that X is the
minimum legal value for your fiel
