lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Earwin Burrfoot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-831) Complete overhaul of FieldCache API/Implementation
Date Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:55:14 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12700430#action_12700430
] 

Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-831:
----------------------------------------

{quote}
Allowing values to change, just like we can call
IndexReader.setNorm/deleteDoc to change norms/deletes. We'd need a
copy-on-write approach, like norms & deleted docs.
{quote}
On the other hand, maybe, we shouldn't?
Deleted docs should definetly be mutable, but that's it.
Anybody is updating norms on a regular basis on a serious project? But still everyone pays
for the feature with running ugly synchronization code for norms. Let's dump it!
As for mutable fields, okay, users of Sphinx have them. They use them mostly.. hehehe.. for
implementing deletions that Sphinx lacks. I bet there could exist some other usecases, but
they can be handled with a custom ValueSource without the need to bring it into API everyone
must implement.

{quote}
Deleted docs could also be represented as a ValueSource? Just one
bit per doc. This way one could swap in whatever source for
"deleted docs" one wanted.
{quote}
That's why I think this is a misfeature. Deleted docs have different meaning from field values.
They can be updated, and they should be checked against uberfast.
Swapping in another impl is cool, while forcing everyone and his dog under the same usage
API is not so cool.

> Complete overhaul of FieldCache API/Implementation
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-831
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>            Assignee: Mark Miller
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>         Attachments: ExtendedDocument.java, fieldcache-overhaul.032208.diff, fieldcache-overhaul.diff,
fieldcache-overhaul.diff, LUCENE-831-trieimpl.patch, LUCENE-831.03.28.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.03.30.2008.diff,
LUCENE-831.03.31.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch,
LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch,
LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch
>
>
> Motivation:
> 1) Complete overhaul the API/implementation of "FieldCache" type things...
>     a) eliminate global static map keyed on IndexReader (thus
>         eliminating synch block between completley independent IndexReaders)
>     b) allow more customization of cache management (ie: use 
>         expiration/replacement strategies, disk backed caches, etc)
>     c) allow people to define custom cache data logic (ie: custom
>         parsers, complex datatypes, etc... anything tied to a reader)
>     d) allow people to inspect what's in a cache (list of CacheKeys) for
>         an IndexReader so a new IndexReader can be likewise warmed. 
>     e) Lend support for smarter cache management if/when
>         IndexReader.reopen is added (merging of cached data from subReaders).
> 2) Provide backwards compatibility to support existing FieldCache API with
>     the new implementation, so there is no redundent caching as client code
>     migrades to new API.

-- 
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