On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Jay Hill <jayallenh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1) Is there any benefit to using the "int" type as a TrieIntField w/ > precisionStep=0 over the "pint" type for simple ints that won't be sorted or > range queried?
No. But given that people could throw in a random range query and have it work correctly with a trie based int (vs a plain int), seems reason enough to prefer it. > 2) In 1.4, what type is now most efficient for sorting? trie and plain should be pretty equivalent (trie might be slightly faster to uninvert the first time). Both take up less memory in the field cache than sint. > 3) The only reason to use a "sint" field is for backward compatibility > and/or to use sortMissingFirst/SortMissingLast, correct? I believe so. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com
