You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to solr-dev@lucene.apache.org by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> on 2009/12/24 19:34:22 UTC

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

On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@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