lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler" <...@thetaphi.de>
Subject RE: TrieRange
Date Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:27:48 GMT
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> > This is only a minimal optimization, suitable for very large indexes.
> The
> > problem is: if you have many terms in highest precission (a lot of
> different
> > double values), seeking is more costly if you jump from higher to lower
> > precisions.
> 
> That's my point... in very large indexes this should not result in any
> difference at all on average because the terms would be no where near
> each other.

OK.

-- I prepare a new TrieRangeFilter implementation, just taking the String[]
fieldnames and the sortableLong and the precisionStep.

And I think, you are right. One could completely remove the "storeing" API.
If one wants to add stored fields, he could use NumberUtils.

> As an example: in a very big index, one wants to independently collect
> all documents that match "apple" and all documents that match "zebra",
> which term you seek to first should not matter.

OK, I agree :)

Uwe


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