lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Grant Ingersoll (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1340) Make it posible not to include TF information in index
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:01:32 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12617954#action_12617954
] 

Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-1340:
-----------------------------------------

I note a change to Fieldable...  sigh...  Back compatibility fails.  Ugh.

Me thinks we should either rework Fieldable as we've previously discussed, or we mark it as
being one of the very few classes in LUcene that is subject to change between releases.



> Make it posible not to include TF information in index
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1340
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1340
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Eks Dev
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch,
LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch
>
>   Original Estimate: 24h
>  Remaining Estimate: 24h
>
> Term Frequency is typically not needed  for all fields, some CPU (reading one VInt less
and one X>>>1...) and IO can be spared by making pure boolen fields possible in Lucene.
This topic has already been discussed and accepted as a part of Flexible Indexing... This
issue tries to push things a bit faster forward as I have some concrete customer demands.
> benefits can be expected for fields that are typical candidates for Filters, enumerations,
user rights, IDs or very short "texts", phone  numbers, zip codes, names...
> Status: just passed standard test (compatibility), commited for early review, I have
not tried new feature, missing some asserts and one two unit tests
> Complexity: simpler than expected
> can be used via omitTf() (who used omitNorms() will know where to find it :)  

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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