lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless" <>
Subject Re: Post mortem kudos for (LUCENE-843) :)
Date Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:35:02 GMT
"Grant Ingersoll" <> wrote:

> This is good stuff...  Might be good to put a organized version of  
> this up on the Wiki under Best Practices

I agree!  I will update the ImproveIndexingSpeed page:

with these suggestions.

> On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> > Yeah it's not so easy now: does not have setters.
> >
> > You have to make your own class that implements Fieldable (or
> > subclasses AbstractField) and adds your own setters. is
> > also [currently] final so you can't subclass it.
> >
> Should we consider putting in these changes?  I think it might be a  
> little weird on the Search side to have setters for Field and it  
> sounds like it could cause trouble for people esp. in a threaded  
> indexing situation, but maybe I am mistaken?

I think adding setters would be reasonable, if we document clearly
that they are advanced, be careful about threads, use at your own risk
sort of methods?  Are there any concerns with that approach?  If not
I'll open an issue and do it... this just makes it easier for people
to maximize indexing performance "out of the box".


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

View raw message