we don't have to sort on that field So that we thought of that approach Thanks for your opinion will consider improving precision step
Kind regards, Aravinth On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > bq: What are your opinions on this? > > That this is not a sound approach. Why do you think Trie is expensive? > What evidence do you have at all for that? Strings are significantly > expensive relative to numeric fields. Plus, you can adjust the > precision step to reduce the "overhead" of a trie field. > > I very strongly doubt that the index would be smaller with strings. > I'm certain comparisons would be slower. I really can't come up with > much of any reason why strings would be better. > > Not to mention that sorting won't work unless you left-pad with zeros. > > Best, > Erick > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:32 AM, aravinth thangasami > <aravinththangas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm searching numeric value and will not perform range query on that > field > > I thought of indexing it as String field instead of NumericField > > so that it will improve indexing time by avoiding numeric tries > > > > What are your opinions on this? > > > > > > Kind regards, > > Aravinth > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
