lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eks Dev (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1340) Make it posible not to include TF information in index
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:03:31 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12617978#action_12617978
] 

Eks Dev commented on LUCENE-1340:
---------------------------------

ouch! it is kind of getting personal between me and Fieldable :) Not the first time to get
bugged by it!

Due to Fieldable (things really important, at lest to me):  
- We cannot get binary stored Field in and out of lucene without getting gc() go crazy
- We cannot omitTF 
 
it would be possible somehow to make it at AbstractField levele and instanceoff at a few places,
but I simply hate to do it (I will patch my local copy, this issue is worth to me... must
branch off from the trunk for the first time, sigh)

funny it is, I see no reason to have anything but AbstractField (Field/Fieldable are just
redundant)

> 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