Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 90291 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2005 20:26:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Jun 2005 20:26:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 21316 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jun 2005 20:26:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 21292 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jun 2005 20:26:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 21279 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jun 2005 20:26:42 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:26:42 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [217.12.11.32] (HELO smtp001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com) (217.12.11.32) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:26:45 -0700 Received: (qmail 33220 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2005 20:26:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.1?) (markharw00d@194.106.34.5 with plain) by smtp001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2005 20:26:39 -0000 Message-ID: <42C3040F.8060800@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:26:55 +0100 From: markharw00d User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Term.compareTerm and MemoryIndex Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Anyone have any objections to committing this addition to Term.java? _http://www.mail-archive.com/java-dev@lucene.apache.org/msg00618.html_ It's a simple addition to avoid fieldName.intern() overheads by safely constructing new Term objects from existing Term objects and re-using it's pre-interned field name. The alternative solution would be to make the existing Term(field, value, isInterned) constructor public with a suitable javadoc warning about the caller ensuring use pre-interned fieldnames. The latest version of MemoryIndex is lingering in BugZilla waiting for the above change. I'd like to update the contrib area with this too if everyone is OK with this. The MemoryIndex's justification for the Term change is here _http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34585_ Cheers Mark ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org