On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Ian Lea wrote:
> I think you can store field "x" using byte[] as one Field and index it
> using String as another Field. Or define your own FieldType and use
> the Field(String name, byte[] value, FieldType type) constructor. Or
> is that where you're getting an
I think you can store field "x" using byte[] as one Field and index it
using String as another Field. Or define your own FieldType and use
the Field(String name, byte[] value, FieldType type) constructor. Or
is that where you're getting an Exception?
How big is your index, or how small are your
Ian and et al,
Just a doubt. Now that I have to index and store(disk space is a
constraint here). I have identified that storing as byte[] helps save some
disk. But it isn't possible to index a byte[], am getting an exception when
the field to be indexed is a byte[].
So how do I go
Yes, that looks fine. As far as I'm aware the compression is low
level and transparent to user code.
--
Ian.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Ian Lea wrote:
>
>> StoredField does indeed only store the field, not index it.
>> Ma
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Ian Lea wrote:
> StoredField does indeed only store the field, not index it.
> MatchAllDocs will find it because, by definition, it matches all docs.
> But other queries won't.
>
That was pretty clear Ian. Thanks a lot.
>
> Not sure what you mean when you say y
StoredField does indeed only store the field, not index it.
MatchAllDocs will find it because, by definition, it matches all docs.
But other queries won't.
Not sure what you mean when you say you are particular about stored
fields. If you need to get it back from the index, store it. If you
don
