lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Doug Cutting (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-550) InstanciatedIndex - faster but memory consuming index
Date Thu, 11 May 2006 18:30:05 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550?page=comments#action_12379124 ] 

Doug Cutting commented on LUCENE-550:
-------------------------------------

This looks very promising.  Unfortunately the code you provide makes many incompatible API
changes (e.g., turning Term into an interface that has far fewer methods) removes lots of
useful javadoc, etc.  So please don't expect it to be committed soon!

A back-compatible way to add an interface is to add it above the old class.  So you might
add a TermInteface, AbstractTerm, and TermImpl, then change term to extend TermImpl and deprecate
it.

Then there's also the question of whether you really must convert Term to an interface.  I
would not undertake that change for aesthetic reasons.  Is it really required to achieve your
goals?  You should generally try hard to minimize the size of your diffs and maximize the
back-compatiblity.


> InstanciatedIndex - faster but memory consuming index
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: LUCENE-550
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550
>      Project: Lucene - Java
>         Type: New Feature

>   Components: Store
>     Versions: 1.9
>     Reporter: Karl Wettin
>  Attachments: Document.java, InstanciatedIndex.java, Term.java, class_diagram.png, class_diagram.png,
src-1.9karl1_20060611.tar.gz, src.tar.gz, src_20060509.tar.gz
>
> After fixing the bugs, it's now 4.5 -> 5 times the speed. This is true for both at
index and query time. Sorry if I got your hopes up too much. There are still things to be
done though. Might not have time to do anything with this until next month, so here is the
code if anyone wants a peek.
> Not good enough for Jira yet, but if someone wants to fool around with it, here it is.
The implementation passes a TermEnum -> TermDocs -> Fields -> TermVector comparation
against the same data in a Directory.
> When it comes to features, offsets don't exists and positions are stored ugly and has
bugs.
> You might notice that norms are float[] and not byte[]. That is me who refactored it
to see if it would do any good. Bit shifting don't take many ticks, so I might just revert
that.
> I belive the code is quite self explaining.
> InstanciatedIndex ii = ..
> ii.new InstanciatedIndexReader();
> ii.addDocument(s).. replace IndexWriter for now.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message