lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: Sharing stored fields between two indexes
Date Wed, 14 May 2008 22:23:38 GMT
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 18:05 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Mark Miller <> wrote:
> > How difficult would it be to share stored fields across two indexes? I
> > am thinking about this for a stemmed and un-stemmed index. I know that
> > you could use two fields, but this affects the term stats for your index
> What stats are you concerned about?  idf is field specific, so extra
> fields don't affect scoring.

Ah, good point. I was confusing this in my mind with the method of using
a sentinel on the term for the stemmed/unstemmed term stored at the same
place in the same index. 

> > and bloats the index for searching.
> The space would be the same (having the two fields in the same index),
> and the only searching difference should be when trying to find a
> term, an additional step in the binary search will be needed to find
> the nearest index term.  That should be negligible.

This was my bigger concern as some of the indexes I will deal with will
be very large. I buy your argument in theory, but I have seen many
database's (yes, not the same as Lucene) that have much higher
performance if you use multiple tables rather than one giant table. This
shouldnt be the case on the same argument right? And maybe that example
is not always true (I am also searching for that answer :) ) but I know
I have seen it in at least SQL server, and seen it mentioned as an
optimization while looking for details on the web.

For now, your better judgment is quicker than trying to benchmark
though, so Ill take it.

- Mark 

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

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

View raw message