Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-20 Thread Vishal Swaroop
Thank you all... You all are experts... I will go with double as this seems to be more feasible. Regards On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: > A field type based on BigDecimal could be useful, but that would be a fair > amount more work. > > Double is usually sufficient fo

Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread Walter Underwood
A field type based on BigDecimal could be useful, but that would be a fair amount more work. Double is usually sufficient for big data analysis, especially if you are doing simple aggregates (which is most of what Solr can do). If you want to do something fancier, you’ll need a database, not a

Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread Erick Erickson
Well, double is all you've got, so that's what you have to work with. _Every_ float is an approximation when you get out to some number of decimal places, so you don't really have any choice. Of course it'll affect the result. The question is whether it affects the result enough to matter which is

Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread Vishal Swaroop
Also 10481.5711458735456*79* indexes to 10481.571145873546 using double On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Vishal Swaroop wrote: > Thanks Erick... I can ignore the trailing zeros > > I am indexing data from Vertica database... Though *double *is very close > but it SOLR indexes 14 digits after de

Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread Vishal Swaroop
Thanks Erick... I can ignore the trailing zeros I am indexing data from Vertica database... Though *double *is very close but it SOLR indexes 14 digits after decimal e.g. actual db value is 15 digits after decimal i.e. 249.81735425382405*2* SOLR indexes 14 digits after decimal i.e. 249.8173542

Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread Erick Erickson
Why do you want to keep trailing zeros? The original input is preserved in the "stored" portion and will be returned if you specify the field in your "fl" list. I'm assuming here that you're looking at the actual indexed terms, and don't really understand why the trailing zeros are important Do no

Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread Vishal Swaroop
Thank you John and Jack... Looks like double is much closer... it removes trailing zeros... a) Is there a way to keep trailing zeros double : 194.846189733028000 indexes to 194.846189733028 b) If I use "String" then will there be issue doing range query float 277.677836785372000 indexes to 277

Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread Jack Krupansky
"double" (solr.TrieDoubleField) gives more precision See: https://lucene.apache.org/solr/5_1_0/solr-core/org/apache/solr/schema/TrieDoubleField.html -- Jack Krupansky On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Vishal Swaroop wrote: > Please suggest which numeric field type to use so that I can get comp

Re: Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread John Blythe
I think the omitNorms option will normalize your field length. try setting that to false (it defaults to true for floats) and see if it helps -- *John Blythe* Product Manager & Lead Developer 251.605.3071 | j...@curvolabs.com www.curvolabs.com 58 Adams Ave Evansville, IN 47713 On Tue, May 19,

Suggestion on field type

2015-05-19 Thread Vishal Swaroop
Please suggest which numeric field type to use so that I can get complete value. e.g value in database is : 194.846189733028000 If I index it as float SOLR indexes it as 194.84619 where as I need complete value i.e 194.846189733028000 I will also be doing range query on this field. Regards