lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Kirchgessner <>
Subject Re: Question about FieldInfos
Date Sun, 15 Jan 2006 03:26:22 GMT
Am Sonntag, 15. Januar 2006 02:43 schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
> On Jan 14, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Robert Kirchgessner wrote:
> > Well, I thing merging segments should be possible only if
> > the field definitions are consistent throughout the segments.
> > Merging inconsistent segments looks for me like an error at worst
> > and bad design at least. But I may just not have met an
> > appropriate use case yet...
> Lucene allows the user to change field definitions on the fly.
> That's like an SQL database which auto-adapts the table definition
> with each INSERT.  It's impressive that Lucene can do that, but look
> under the hood and you'll see that it ain't easy, or cheap.

Could you explain this or give me a hint where to look for why it isn't cheap?

> My radical suggestion:
>      * Require fields to be defined when the index
>        is first created.

I may be too restrictive. I think it's OK to add fields to documents.
It enables creating additional fields at any time. Adding
fields should happen in a consistent way though. Maybe
throw an exception on adding a field with inconsistent definition.

>      * Store field definitions in a single per-index,
>        human-readable file.

I like the idea of a per-index field definitions file, be it
human-readable or not.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message