Paul Smith wrote:
> I don't disagree with the premise that it involves substantial I/O and
> would increase the time taken to sort, and why this approach shouldn't
> be the default mechanism, but it's not too difficult to build a disk I/O
> subsystem that can allocate many spindles to service this and to allow
> the underlying OS to use it's buffer cache (yes this is sounding like a
> database server now isn't it).
My guess is that it'd be cheaper to just buy more RAM.
> It would be better if the sorting
> mechanism in Lucene was a little more decoupled such that more
> customised designs could be utilitised for specific scenarios. Right
> now it's a one-for-all approach without substantial gutting of the code.
That's just what most folks have found useful to date. If you have a
patch to decouple it, and others find it useful, then it should be
seriously considered. I do have some concerns about whether the
approach you suggest is in fact useful, but am happy to be proven wrong.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
|