On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I guess my first question is whether using stirngs > is "fast enough", in which case there's little reason to > make your life more complex. > > But yes, range queries will be significantly faster with > any of the Trie types than with strings.
To elaborate on this point a bit... range queries on strings will be the same speed as a numeric field with precisionStep=0. You need a precisionStep > 0 (so the number will be indexed in multiple parts) to speed up range queries on numeric fields. (See "int" vs "tint" in the solr schema). -Yonik lucenerevolution.com - Lucene/Solr Open Source Search Conference. Boston May 7-10 Trie types are > all numeric types. > > > Best > Erick > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:49 AM, crive <marco.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> is there a big difference in terms of performances when querying a range >> like [50.0 TO *] on a string field compared to a float field? >> >> At the moment I am using a dynamic field of type string to map some values >> coming from our database and their type can vary depending on the context >> (float/integer/string); it easier to use a dynamic field other than having >> to create a bespoke field for each type of value. >> >> Marco
