Great explanation. Thanks
On 5/13/11 8:25 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Well, let's be clear about what we're talking about. The suggested numeric and
date fields in the current Solr example schema are in fact ALL Trie based
fields.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/trunk/solr/example/solr/conf/schema.xml?view=markup
I don't think there is any downside to using a Trie-based field. Trie based
fields make for quicker range queries (or greater-than/less-than queries, the
same thing), with no downside.
The old non-trie based fields are marked in the example schema are all marked
"should only be used for compatibility with existing indexes." So the
'standard' fields are in fact all Trie-based fields now.
Now, here's the thing though, using a Trie-based field, you still have a choice
about the 'precision'. The example schema includes trie-based fields with
0-precision (int, float, long, double, date), and trie-fields with greater than
0 precision (tint, tfloat, tdouble, tlong, date). You can also create your own
field defintions for trie fields with the precision of your choice, you aren't
limited to what's set for tint etc in the example schema.xml.
So the real question might be how to decide what precision on trie fields is
appropriate for your data and use cases. I am not exactly sure of the answer to
that, but it _probably_ won't matter that much for many data/use-cases. So one
answer is, don't worry too much about it unless you are seeing performance
problems on range queries. I know I've seen something written explaining what a
trie field is and what the precision means in the context of Solr, but I can't
seem to find it now.
________________________________________
From: Mark [static.void....@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 11:14 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: When to use trie over standard
When should one use Trie fields over the standard fields? What aret the
pro's and con's of each?
Thanks
