Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <1885092593.1237590890999.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-652) Compressed fields should be
 "externalized" (from Fields into Document)
In-Reply-To: <31567249.1155580814061.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-652?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12685385#action_12685385 ] 

Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-652:
--------------------------------------

Fine! In my opinion the little overhead of UnicodeUtils is far lower that the one by compression and the ByteArrayStreams.

{quote}
bq. Can i uncompress fields compressed using the old tools also by retrieving the byte array and using CompressionTools?

Well... yes, but: you can't actually get the compressed byte[]
(because Lucene will decompress it for you).
{quote}

You can: With a FieldSelector that load the fields for merge, you get the raw binary values (found out from the code of FieldsReader).

> Compressed fields should be "externalized" (from Fields into Document)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-652
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-652
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>    Affects Versions: 1.9, 2.0.0, 2.1
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.9
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-652.patch, LUCENE-652.patch, LUCENE-652.patch
>
>
> Right now, as of 2.0 release, Lucene supports compressed stored fields.  However, after discussion on java-dev, the suggestion arose, from Robert Engels, that it would be better if this logic were moved into the Document level.  This way the indexing level just stores opaque binary fields, and then Document handles compress/uncompressing as needed.
> This approach would have prevented issues like LUCENE-629 because merging of segments would never need to decompress.
> See this thread for the recent discussion:
>     http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/38836
> When we do this we should also work on related issue LUCENE-648.

-- 
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