Thanks for the reply.

How about using the double fieldType?
I tried that it works, as it is 64-bit, as compared to 32-bit for float.
But will it hit the same issue again if the amount exceeds 64-bit?

Regards,
Edwin


On 7 December 2016 at 15:28, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, you'll have to do the conversion yourself (or something internal,
> like the currencyField).
>
> Think about it as datetimes. You store everything in utc (cents), but
> display to each user in it's own timezone (different currency, or just from
> cents to full dollars).
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo <edwinye...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > But if I index $1234.56 as "123456", won't it affect the search or facet
> if
> > I do a query directly to Solr?
> >
> > Say if I search for index with amount that is lesser that $2000, it will
> > not match, unless when we do the search, we have to pass "200000" to
> Solr?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Edwin
> >
> >
> > On 7 December 2016 at 07:44, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > : Thanks for your reply.
> > > :
> > > : That means the best fieldType to use for money is currencyField, and
> > not
> > > : any other fieldType?
> > >
> > > The primary use case for CurrencyField is when you want to do dynamic
> > > currency fluctuations between multiple currency types at query time --
> > but
> > > to do that you either need to use the FileExchangeRateProvider and have
> > > your owne backend system to update the exchange rates, or you have to
> > have
> > > an openexchangerates.org account, or implement some other provider
> (with
> > > custom solr java code)
> > >
> > >
> > > If you only care about a single type of currency -- for example, if all
> > > you care about is is US Dollars -- then just use either
> > > TrieIntField or TrieLongField and represent in the smallest possible
> > > increment you need to measure -- for US Dollars this would be cents.
> ie:
> > > $1234.56 would be put in your index as "123456"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Hoss
> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to