lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Per-document Payloads (was: Re: lucene indexing and merge process)
Date Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:42:50 GMT

On Oct 20, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> On 10/20/07, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>> I think one of the questions that will come up from users is when
>> should I use addMetadata and when should I use addField?  Why make
>> the distinction to the user?  Fields have always represented
>> metadata, all your doing is optimizing the internal storage of them.
>> So from an interface side of things, I would just make it a new Field
>> type.
>
> Same thing occured to me...
> Fieldable.isStoredSeparately()?
>
> I wouldn't mind this byte[] access to any type of field stored
> separately (non binary fields too).  What about switching from char
> counts to byte counts for indexed (String) fields that are stored
> separately?
>
> I guess fields that were stored separately would not be returned
> unless asked for by name?

Right, I would think the typical use case would be you want all the  
"small" fields to be returned w/ the document and the large fields to  
be lazily loaded.  I think it should be seamless to the user.   
Perhaps we could have a threshold value upon indexing, such that all  
fields below are determined to be small, and all above are large,  
then at retrieval time we just compare the byte count to the  
threshold and lazy load the large fields.

Just a thought.  There are probably several ways this could be handled.

-Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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