trie fields default in example schema

[Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>]

I'm working on a jumbo trie patch (just many smaller trie related
issues at once) - SOLR-1288.

Anyway, I think support will be good enough for 1.4 that we should
make types like "integer" in the example schema be based on the trie
fields.  The current "integer" fields should be renamed to "pinteger"
(for plain integer), and have a recommended use only for compatibility
with other/older indexes.  People have mistakenly used the plain
integer in the past based on the name, so I think we should fix the
naming.

The trie based fields should have lower memory footprint in the
fieldcache and are faster for a lookup (the only reason to use plain
ints in the past)... sint uses StringIndex for historical reasons - we
had no other option... we could upgrade the existing sint fields, but
it wouldn't be quite 100% compatible and there's little reason since
we have the trie fields now.

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: trie fields default in example schema

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: Anyway, I think support will be good enough for 1.4 that we should
: make types like "integer" in the example schema be based on the trie
: fields.  The current "integer" fields should be renamed to "pinteger"
: (for plain integer), and have a recommended use only for compatibility
: with other/older indexes.  People have mistakenly used the plain
: integer in the past based on the name, so I think we should fix the
: naming.
: 
: The trie based fields should have lower memory footprint in the
: fieldcache and are faster for a lookup (the only reason to use plain
: ints in the past)... sint uses StringIndex for historical reasons - we
: had no other option... we could upgrade the existing sint fields, but
: it wouldn't be quite 100% compatible and there's little reason since
: we have the trie fields now.

+1

my only question when skimming hte recent schema.xml changes is wether the 
new TrieFields support sortMissingLast ?




-Hoss