lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r893792 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: example/solr/conf/schema.xml src/java/org/apache/solr/schema/CoordinateFieldType.java src/java/org/apache/solr/schema/FieldType.java src/java/org/apache/solr/schema/PointType.java
Date Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:34:22 GMT
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2009, at 12:42 PM, yonik@apache.org wrote:
>> -    <fieldType name="location" class="solr.PointType" dimension="2" subFieldType="double"/>
>> +    <fieldType name="location" class="solr.PointType" dimension="2" subFieldSuffix="_d"/>
>>
>>  </types>
>
> Shouldn't we demo both?

There are tradeoffs to including all variations of something (that
being schema bloat).  These two variants do the exact same thing for
the end user (since the only difference is sub-field naming), so we
should pick one or the other IMO.  That's what most people will end up
using.  We could include the other variant commented out, but I think
that's overkill too given that we listed an example of each in the
comment for "location".

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Mime
View raw message